Implied parents not shown in any view

[scriptor-dga]

Let's say we have a note called A. Note B is a child of A. Then I create a note B1 next to B. Therefore A is an implied parent of B1. Yet if I open B1, I can only see the "prev" relation with B in the matrix/trail view but not the implied parent A. In general, not all implied relations are picked up and they must be explicitly written.
Why is that?

[jikee-h]

The strangest thing here is that if in your example you qualify B1 as "same" as B (instead of next) then the A becomes the implied parent of B1...
This is a discrepancy IMHO

[541bot]

Was that ever solved? I have the same issue and can't find an answer.
Aren't "next"/"prev" not treated the same as "same"? As in if A is the parent of B1 and B2 is the next of B1, then A should also be the parent of B2?

[AnkeW]

I noticed in a different context that "next"/"prev" and "same" are treated as mutually exclusive.

In my calendar I wanted to have all days of a week with a "same" relation, and in addition "next" and "prev" relationships where appropriate. The "same" relationship that Breadcrumbs automatically built because I added "up" relationships with the note representing the week showed up, but excluded the "next" and "prev" - for example, if viewing Tuesday, the Matrix view would list as "same" Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Monday was listed as "prev" and Wednesday as "next". When I added an explicit "same" field with all weekdays, those would show up under "same" in Matrix view, but the "next" and "prev" boxes disappeared, and the Trail links disappeared, too.

My expectation was that "next" and "prev" notes are part of the group of "same" notes, not separate from them. If that's not done automatically, at least it should be possible to declare it so explicitly with the markup in the file.

[michaelpporter]

Thanks for the patience — this changed completely in the v4 rewrite, and the behaviour you wanted is now supported (it's just opt-in).

In v4, implied relations are user-defined transitive rules applied by the graph engine, and they show up in every view (Matrix, Tree, trail) styled as implied edges. A rule is a chain of fields that collapses into one field, e.g. [same, up] -> up reads as "if X is same as Y, and Y is up to Z, then X is implied up to Z."

Your original case — A is parent of B, B1 is a sibling of B, so A should be an implied parent of B1 — is exactly that rule:

[same, up] -> up

Add it under Settings → Breadcrumbs → Implied relations (there's a bulk-add box that takes the [field-one, field-two] -> close-field syntax, one rule per line).

On the next/prev vs same discrepancy you both noticed: that v3 asymmetry is gone. v4 ships no built-in "share the parent" rule at all — the defaults are only the single-hop close pairs (up↔down, same↔same, next↔prev). So nothing propagates parents by default; you add exactly the chains you want. To get the same parent-sharing for sequential notes, add:

[next, up] -> up
[prev, up] -> up

Closing as resolved since v4 makes this configurable — shout if a specific chain doesn't behave as expected.