Karsten's answer is detailed, but I think you missed the fact that Field A and Field 1 are different Karsten.
In your naming I think this would be:
A and B and C and (X or Y or Z)
The answer is right though @geopartin - this is a rather frustrating limitation of the current tool. You can either do this:
A and B and C and X
OR
A and B and C and Y
OR
A and B and C and Z
or you can make a second list. I would definitely vote for the second list option as Karsten mentioned already. It's a pain, but it's actually not unhelpful to have sub-lists like this, not least because you can standardize the definition of something and then re-use it. And it prevents the gymnastics or trying to do the logic above.
@sharonlicari I was sure there was an Idea for this in the ideas forum to improve the conditional logic in lists. But I just searched and can't for the life of me find it. Can you see if your search-fu is better than mine? We should all be upvoting that to improve this situation in the future 🙂 This has caught me out before and had some slightly painful business implications when I messed it up!
For anybody finding this thread in future, please add your upvote to that idea so it can get more visibility. I suspect that while this would be a fairly trivial front-end change, it has larger implications for query performance on the server side, so it will need a fair amount of requests in order to make it to the roadmap. Let's all upvote it and try and make it happen 🙂
Karsten's answer is detailed, but I think you missed the fact that Field A and Field 1 are different Karsten.
In your naming I think this would be:
A and B and C and (X or Y or Z)
The answer is right though @geopartin - this is a rather frustrating limitation of the current tool. You can either do this:
A and B and C and X
OR
A and B and C and Y
OR
A and B and C and Z
or you can make a second list. I would definitely vote for the second list option as Karsten mentioned already. It's a pain, but it's actually not unhelpful to have sub-lists like this, not least because you can standardize the definition of something and then re-use it. And it prevents the gymnastics or trying to do the logic above.
@sharonlicari I was sure there was an Idea for this in the ideas forum to improve the conditional logic in lists. But I just searched and can't for the life of me find it. Can you see if your search-fu is better than mine? We should all be upvoting that to improve this situation in the future 🙂 This has caught me out before and had some slightly painful business implications when I messed it up!
Thank you for the tag @mike-ward, I'm pretty sure Joe from the Ideas forum can help us with this.
Hey @JoeMayall do you know if there is an idea similar to this thread?
Thanks
Sharon
Join us on March 27th at 12 PM for the Digital Essentials Lab, an interactive session designed to redefine your digital strategy!
Engage with expert Jourdan Guyton to gain actionable insights, participate in live Q&A, and learn strategies to boost your business success. Don't miss this opportunity to connect and grow—reserve your spot today!