Skip to main content
Shun Takase
MVP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
MVP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
October 14, 2026
Gathering Interest

【InField】It would be helpful if automatic switching of certain status filters could be restricted.

Related products:InField

If you perform the following actions in InField while status filters (“Ready,” “In Progress,” and “Done”) are set, I believe the status filters will automatically switch.

① If you change the “Done” checklist to “In Progress,” only the “In Progress” filter will remain
② If you change the “In Progress” checklist to “Done,” only the “Ready” filter will remain
③ When you start reviewing a checklist marked as “Ready,” only the “In Progress” filter remains

Regarding point ③, I believe this is by design since it’s a natural flow considering the user’s workflow; however, we’ve received feedback from our users that points ① and ② are somewhat cumbersome to use.

① ⇒ In our company, when an approver reviews the checklists Doned by an inspector, they sometimes review them all at once using the following workflow; however, this creates extra effort when instructing a re-inspection.
Workflow Overview
Conduct inspection (Inspector)
⇒ Once the inspection is Done, change the checklist status to “Doned” (Inspector)
Repeat this for each checklist.
⇒ Review all Doned checklists at once (Approver)
⇒ Change the status of checklists requiring re-inspection back to “In Progress” and instruct a re-inspection
*Note: When changing the status from “Doned” back to “In Progress,” the filter defaults to “In Progress,” so we must apply the “Doned” filter again to review the next Doned checklist.

② ⇒ In our company, inspectors often check multiple checklists simultaneously during a single round. However, when one checklist is Doned and the “Ready” filter is applied, we have to switch the status back to “In Progress” to view the checklists being processed in parallel.

If this is an intentional design, it is fine as is; however, if there is no specific reason for this behavior, we would appreciate it if you could implement a specification that retains the filter settings for the scenarios described in ① and ②.

I apologize for making such a detailed request, but I would appreciate it if you could consider this.

1 reply

Practitioner ⭐️⭐️⭐️
October 15, 2026

Hi ​@Shun Takase,
Thank you for suggesting this product idea. We will follow the traction this idea gets in the community. You can expect updates on this post if we decide to include this in our future roadmap, or if we require more information.

Regards