We have an application with three record types (Accounts, Items, Manager Groupings).
Ideally we would dedicate a Site tab to each view but the 5-tab limitation inhibits that. Therefore, we use one "Records" tab to access all three records where the user chooses from one card for each record type. Currently that open up a separate browser window and a separate Site where each record list view is on it's own site tab. In an ideal world the card would open up the record list view within the existing window and Site where the card is clicked.
Has anyone accomplished this successfully? Would love to see how you did it.
Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible
I'd hazard a guess that no-one has achieved this as a Site's tab is 'concreted' to a given type of content at design-time. You could (!) roll your own record-list by fetching the data (using a Query Entity) and rendering a list of the data with links to the individual records. Yes, you'd have to create your own custom filters, paging etc etc but you would have full control over what type of list is displayed when a specific card is selected.
A 'Record List' component (which would address your use case) is in the Appian road-map but currently (as of 19.4) not available.
Similar to what Stewart already mentioned, a project I was on recently accomplished this by using Reports pointing to custom-built Record listings. Honestly, custom-built record listings provide a lot more flexibility anyway, and only have a slight dropoff in ease of design (at least if you're ok with foregoing the baked-in features like Export List to Excel and the Save Default Filters introduced in 19.4).
Otherwise, doing it this way provides a seamless integration within a Site since it provides nearly unlimited levels of nesting (like, you can just have a main "Records" site tab, then in there, have various major categories to drill down into, and categories under those, etc). Also, doing more advanced filtering and other on-page features (like having multiple "action" buttons to start various processes) are a huge benefit which I don't foresee ever being included with the OOB record list builder.
As a side-note, it escapes me why they haven't just gone ahead and included a way to make a!recordLink() just link to the record type when no identifier is provided. And why we haven't gotten other similar navigation link types to facilitate OOB linking without resorting to workarounds involving URL cobbling (and requiring a!safeLink()) -- like a new component called a!siteLink() for one possible example. Or a!recordTypeLink(), i.e. if updating a!recordLink() wouldn't work for back-end reasons.
Records are currently undergoing a major set of enhancements, as already mentioned above, including the ability to launch Related Actions directly from the Record List (where they will inherit their relevant visibility!), a Record View component (to place a single Record's View - Summary or otherwise - in any interface)...effectively decomposing a Record's capabilities into more granular components. I can't give you a definitive timeline but work is currently underway.
That all sounds really great, thanks for the info - will be looking forward to seeing what they come up with.
As an aside, in case you're in a position to talk to any of the relevant decision-makers, my remaining outstanding feature requests don't appear to have really gotten on anyone's radar but are still very much needed/desired ;-)
HI Mike - if your requests have ever manifested them inside an Appian Support request they *should* make their way to Appian Engineering's backlog. There is also an Appian 'Use Case' backlog: if you are working for an Appian customer they they can make a request to their Appian representative to add these enhancements to this list, with a relevant contact at the client. These carry more weight as they are coming straight from the field from someone who is paying for Appian!
Thanks - I actually did that for one of those (see support case 484795) several months ago, but couldn't quite justify doing it for the other two yet.