I have voiceover audio samples that I want to combine into a script. I tried using the multiple links field, but the problem with that is (apparently?) it can’t contain duplicate entries, which I need as some voice phrases will be repeated in the script.
The modular content field does work, but it’s much more cumbersome (see screenshot), because you have a wrapper model around every sample. Also the layout is not as compact, and you can’t drag to reorder. In general it’s confusing for editors having modular content with only one block type and only one field in the block.
Any ideas? Would it ever be possible to allow duplicates in multiple links fields?
Hello @webworkshop, welcome!! 
Regarding the multiple links it’s not possible to have duplicate and yes the modular block with a single field inside is how you currently implement the “repeater” field (look here: Nested Blocks - #9 by matjack1 and the rest of the topic for more details on what is currently requested).
But you can drag and drop if you collapse all the blocks first. If you click on the three dots on the blocks you can do that. Collapse all blocks and then drag and drop.
Many thanks @mat_jack1. Do you have a feel for which option is likely to improve more over time?
If the multiple links field might eventually support duplicates I may plough ahead and try and manage for now and come back to it, but if it’s a hard architectural decision to not allow duplicates then perhaps not.
If it’s more likely the modular field UI might be improved somehow for the single-field case (off the top of my head, say collapsing the padding around the single nested field, and moving the nested field’s label to the block) then perhaps I would manage with that.
I’ve been looking at other options and the spreadsheet style CMSs (eg. AirTable) look great for my use case in terms of easy and compact UI for my non-technical editors, but they are all very loose in terms of schema. I keep coming back to Dato because it seems to be practically the only CMS where I can set strict rules and avoid null fields etc (on AirTable you can’t even set a file field to contain exactly one file, the editor can leave it blank or choose multiple). I tried Prismic a while ago and it was the same story — you have to write a ton of code on your static site builder or API client to deal with any missing data, which isn’t a good fit for a small projects or small teams (and is questionable for larger projects too).
1 Like
Yes, we believe strongly in strict validations in order to simplify a lot the code
Regarding the most likely option I would bet on a streamlined version of the modular content, as it would probably be just a UI/UX improvement and stay the same under the hood (or with a slight change if needed).
Thank you for your kind words!!
