[BUG] Composite Blocktype Validation does not account for different block ordering

[georg-schwarz]

Steps to reproduce

1. Add an unused block to an existing blocktype definition
2. Move the unused block up and down

Description

• Expected: The "unused" warning stays at the unused block
• Actual: The warning jumps over to other blocks

Notes

• Issue is probably the validation function that assumes the correct order of blocks instead of navigating over the graph of blocks and pipes (see here)
• In the same go, the validation logic should be moved to the container (pipeline, composite blocktype) to avoid "going upwards" in the AST as much as possible

[TungstnBallon]

This seems to be fixed, perhaps by a44a73c?

Screencast.from.2024-05-17.12-06-38.webm

[rhazn]

I agree, can't reproduce either.