Deactivate obsolete fields

[cpabst]

Hi,

we are currently looking for a way to get rid of a number of fields in order to clean up the system.

These fields are in most cases no longer used or there are newer versions by now. The problem is, it confuses users,

e.g. when they are building a Query etc.

We could of course rename them and put it to the end by having 'z_' prefix, but that's not really a good solution.

So is there any chance to 'deactivate' a field or something similar?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Best,

Chris

PS: I am talking about 800-1000 fields. The system had quite a number of admins in the past and this messed up out system slightly.

[JoeBartlett · Accepted solution]

Hello Christoph,

If you do not care about keeping fields on the items for legacy purposes, you can edit the Type and remove them from the Visible Fields section. This will not show them when a user loads an item. However, those field name entries will still be visible when users work with queries, when they get the output of im fields, etc.

There is an existing enhancement request posted to de-activate and fully hide unwanted fields so please open a new case to have your company attached to that request.

[cpabst]

Hey Joe,

thanks for the reply. Actually what we are looking for is exactly what the RFC describes.

These fields are no longer relevant to any active items. Either the whole items have been deactivated or the individual fields have been removed from them, but it is the selection list when creating Queries etc, that became way too long in our case.

But let's see and wait what the RFC will bring us, once it has been realized.

Thanks,

Chris

[KaelLizak]

Hello Christoph,

Joe's recommendation about opening a case is so that your organization can register that this is an important issue to it on some level, and to capture your use case (even if it is the exact use case described by the RFC).

If Joe's response has the resolution you were looking for you, could you please also mark it as Correct Answer, so that others searching this answer find the resolution quickly?

Thanks,

Kael