-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
More a suggestion than bug. #8
Comments
@Just-another-pleb, I'm not clear on what you are trying to achieve. I take it that you want the option for the node to accept several alternative forms of control messages, at least for My first thought is that each A general approach to dealing with a "complicated gate layout" would be my |
With only a screenshot and not the actual flow, I have some difficulty working out exactly the logic you are trying to achieve. If what you want is to use a single message to set the state of an arbitrary number of
As an example, each of the |
Yeah, ok. (Again) That flow has "extra" buttons to do things. Basically the idea is you have a button to activate that input. This is a better flow to demonstrate the idea.
So ideally (example) button 1 is turned off if it sees: 2 (or) 3 (or) 4 (or) 5 There is a second flow. It works. Slightly better but it has a set of extra function nodes.
Second flow.
|
@Just-another-pleb, sorry I missed your latest post. I've been busy recovering from an injury and careless about other things. Here are two flows that do what you want or at least the same thing as your second flow. The first generates error messages that you can ignore.
The second avoids the error messages at the cost of a fairly simple function node.
This convinces me that with a bit of ingenuity you can generate the messages you need in a flow that is not too messy. It turns out that allowing multiple synonyms for the control commands would require a significant reworking of the node, both the internal logic and the user interface. Unless more use cases turn up that would really benefit from the feature, I'm not prepared to take that on. |
Thanks. I've only imported it and looked. Appreciated the effort you put in the reply. Hope all goes well with getting better. Injuries are not fun. P.S. |
The "on" and "off" fields.
They allow only ONE entry. Fair enough, but.... (wink)
There are times when I am using a complicated gate layout and there are many paths.
Therefore there are many signals.
Could the OFF field be allowed to accept multiple types?
eg: off || close || shut
Those words a poor examples but to help get the idea through.
That way you could have something like this.
(Again slight over simplified.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: