Upgrade StorageImprove import from file
Currently when importing entries from a file, the original folder structure is imported "in place".
I think it would be preferable to create the structure imported from the file in a folder of its own. Then one could decide which entried to keep/move/delete.
I think it would make sense to use (a derivative of) the import file name as the name for the new folder, or use "imported entries" for the folder name.
Alternatively a tree-like view could be presented with the ability to select each group or entry for import. Then, maybe it would be OK to import "in place".
I think it would be preferable to create the structure imported from the file in a folder of its own. Then one could decide which entried to keep/move/delete.
I think it would make sense to use (a derivative of) the import file name as the name for the new folder, or use "imported entries" for the folder name.
Alternatively a tree-like view could be presented with the ability to select each group or entry for import. Then, maybe it would be OK to import "in place".
In the cases where it's used there is a good case to be made against nesting them further. I occasionally export/import single collections, maybe with a couple of subcollections, I'd rather not have them one level deep nested.
When you import a file, it is imported into a collection named after the name of the file. Though this might seem like an in-place import, it's actually not.