Two feature suggestions: Field "Instructions" and "slug" field

[schwartzmj]

Has there been any interest in these two features being added to Pocketbase?

• When creating a field on a collection, add support for a "description" or "instructions" for the field. This allows us to elaborate on what a field is for and specifically what it does for the end user. It also allows us to provide an example. Imagine a field called "phone" with a description of "The staff member's phone number to be displayed within their profile card in the format of xxx-xxx-xxxx". This is more helpful than the user entering random values until they figure out how to satisfy the regex and also provides more detail on how it is used.
• Implement a new "slug" field that auto-generates a slug based on another field, e.g. title or maybe even multiple other fields. It would need the ability to be overridden/editable. Maybe some other feature could accomplish this like configurable "auto-populated" fields.

As it stands, we find it difficult to use Pocketbase for non-tech savvy users and believe these two features would go a long way towards helping with that.

[ganigeorgiev]

I've added the field "instructions"/comments suggestion to the roadmap. I'm still reluctant to implement it as it may clutter the UI but I'll reconsider it since several other users also requested it in the past.

The slug field could complicate the internal validations as it will be dependent on other fields and at least for v1 remains out of the scope (the pile of feature requests doesn't end and I have to put a stop somewhere as I'm already almost 6months behind the roadmap of my other open source project...).

Note that while the Admin UI can be used as a very rudimentary CMS, it wasn't really intended for that as it is lacking a lot of features that non-tech savvy users will find missing.
If you are looking for a more CMS-like experience you might find Strapi or Directus better for your use case.

[schwartzmj]

Appreciate the response! Happy to hear you're considering the "instructions" field as we'd find that extremely helpful.

Pocketbase is fantastic, thank you for your work!

[schwartzmj]

The slug field could complicate the internal validations as it will be dependent on other fields and at least for v1 remains out of the scope (the pile of feature requests doesn't end and I have to put a stop somewhere as I'm already almost 6months behind the roadmap of my other open source project...).

One other thought here. I envisioned the slug field really being more of a front-end "helper" field. It would really just be a text field, but would auto-complete client-side as the user types in a "title" (or clicks a "generate" button) and would have a unique constraint by default. Totally understand if this doesn't make sense for your vision though!

[einarpersson]

I am not sure that an instruction for each field is such a great idea. There are so many fields where this is not relevant, where the values are not inserted manually.

If it were to be implemented I think I would prefer the name description as that could be applicable to all fields, and that could still bring some value and clarity. But I am not sure. Anyhow, given our usage of Pocketbase, I think that I as a new user would get confused if I saw instruction (but that could be solved with an instruction for that 🤣 ). Description is more descriptive.

[schwartzmj]

Agree, "description" makes sense for a naming convention.