Feature Request: Field type to "link" to another Codebook entry

There is a growing case for systems/organizations using online login/facilities, each having unique characteristics, but relying on a single authentication identity. In such cases, I have multiple entries in Codebook, one for each “system” where I either have to duplicate authentication credentials or use a note field that indicates to refer to a specific single entry that holds the authentication credentials. For the latter case, it would be most appreciated to have a field entry type that operates like a hyperlink to link to another codebook entry when clicked on.

Hi @drb,

Thanks for using Codebook and posting your feature request here on the forum!

We’ve had similar requests in the past where a customer has a username and password for single-sign-on that they need to use with multiple websites on differing domains, and they want those credentials to be available in AutoFill when they visit each of those sites.

To support that, you can add multiple Website fields to the same Entry record, and when you visit either of those sites and invoke Codebook’s AutoFill feature, it will still pull up the right credentials for you:

When you visit any of these websites and their is a login form on the page, the Codebook AutoFill feature will display the SSO Login entry for form-filling.

When you say you are looking at unique characteristics, I wonder if you are using the Secret Agent keyboard shortcut on either Windows or macOS, and the Secret Agent Action feature to fill in those forms? You could have multiple Secret Agent Action fields defined on the same entry to support different forms—these are like small scripts that you can set up to support distinct login form processes. You could even give them names for the particular portal.

Here I’ve added two such labels in Customize Labels (under the File menu in macOS and Windows):

This allows me to add both form-filling actions to the entry like so:

This makes them available in the Secret Agent shortcut window, and can be triggered with the enter/return key to fill out a particular form:

Finally, perhaps I’m off base here, and what you’re looking for is to absolutely have distinct Entry records for each site in question, and the ability to “click over” (or tap) to display a linked Entry with the login credentials to use?


Not sure about others. In my case, I don’t use Autofill or Secret Agent features. I have one finance services site that requires manual entry of credentials (ie disabled pasting of password).

And this not specifically focused on entries with small sets of fields, like website URL and credential tuples.

I use Codebook for more than password management. Using it more as a secured centralized data management system, that includes augmentation of credential data with other information related to an entity/system. For example, for online systems, I may have information like: Account Creation Date, Security Questions/Answers [Yes, there are cases where security questions are different for each service that uses a shared credential], Phone number(s), Address(es), etc

1 Like

Hi Darren,

Okay that’s good to know, we really appreciate the additional information!

There are a couple of new field types (labels) that we have been thinking lately of introducing, and we’ll add this to the list.

I can’t promise anything right now—we are in the middle of a very big lift, working hard on Codebook 5, which features a new automatic, background sync service. In general, a major new version number is a good time for a feature adjustment like new field types, but we have a lot to do for this current release so we’ll see.

Other label adjustments we’re been thinking about:

  • a distinct credit card number type, that partially masks on display
  • a credit card verification code type (aka cvv2)
  • supporting OTPAuth URLs as the value of 2-Step Code fields

Thank you for the consideration. This request would be nice addition, but the number of cases for which this is applicable is small, so it is a low priority ask. I understand that this affects the functionality of the application across all platforms and is more complex/involved to add than simply adding a new label type.

On the topic of label adjustments, feeding on the noted adjustments you’re thinking about, something that I think could be more useful than a link label type, is something new like:

  • On credit cards, a formal label construct for credit card information which includes data fields for: Name on Card, Credit card number (I link the idea of the partial masking), expiration date, and CVV2.

    Currently this is handled by loosely defining each as individual labels and keeping them ordered in the entry along with everything else that may be in defined in the entry.

  • A Password (or PIN) Label Type, that includes in addition to the masked Password/PIN, a bound plain text description field that was unmasked. Where the description explains the use masked fields purpose/scope.

    [PIN] [****] [This is used for verbal confirmation when calling contact center]

    This would currently be handled by either creating a custom label, where the “description” is encapsulated in the label name, ie “Verbal Banking PIN”, or a custom label called “PIN Description” with Note or Plain Text mode that is ordered adjacent the PIN field. I think this could be better handled using a single label type that exposes a pair of horizontally adjacent field values where one is masked and the 2nd is not. This is similar to the credit card label noted above.

If links were available, I could handle each of these with dedicated entries (collected in a specific category) with one entry per:

  • PIN: where that “PIN” entry had 2 fields of Note and PIN, and then link to it from a main entry.
  • Credit Card: where that “Credit Card” entry had the 4 detailed fields.

In composing this, I realize that there are likely multiple ways to address aggregating or associating fields, and I suspect the fundamental Codebook use model assumes one will create an extensive set of custom labels, or jam everything into a single Note field. For many people I have recommended Codebook to, they use just the product and labels supplied out of the box and I see people using the note field to aggregate content.

And to close, how about:

  • the ability to add custom icons to be used for the entry icon’s
  • the ability to add a horizontal line separator to help visually aggregate fields, or a box to group fields together.

Again, these are all suggestions to enhance the product in small incremental ways.

1 Like