Skip to content
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

Various flow related fixes #18547

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Dec 27, 2019
Merged

Various flow related fixes #18547

merged 6 commits into from
Dec 27, 2019

Conversation

juliushaertl
Copy link
Member

@juliushaertl juliushaertl commented Dec 23, 2019

blizzz
blizzz previously requested changes Dec 23, 2019
Copy link
Member

@blizzz blizzz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I always see "The configuration is invalid" even if it is not (existing and new rules). Despite saving works.

@juliushaertl
Copy link
Member Author

I always see "The configuration is invalid" even if it is not (existing and new rules). Despite saving works.

Ah indeed, seems to only occur with multiple checks. Fix pushed.

Copy link
Member

@blizzz blizzz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, works now!

Just, an other thing: unconditional flows (without a check) were OK before. Rejecting them could potentially break older once… Not that I have an idea where they would be useful. That might come back to us. Otherwise, +1.

Copy link
Contributor

@kesselb kesselb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@skjnldsv skjnldsv added 4. to release Ready to be released and/or waiting for tests to finish and removed 3. to review Waiting for reviews labels Dec 23, 2019
@juliushaertl
Copy link
Member Author

Just, an other thing: unconditional flows (without a check) were OK before. Rejecting them could potentially break older once… Not that I have an idea where they would be useful.

Yes, I was thinking the same, but I also could not think of a rule that would make sense without any check.

@blizzz
Copy link
Member

blizzz commented Dec 25, 2019

Just, an other thing: unconditional flows (without a check) were OK before. Rejecting them could potentially break older once… Not that I have an idea where they would be useful.

Yes, I was thinking the same, but I also could not think of a rule that would make sense without any check.

Config switch :p

Okay. Existing ones should run, but not be modifyable anymore. Let's just be sure to document it in the release notes.

Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
@rullzer rullzer merged commit f3232fc into master Dec 27, 2019
@rullzer rullzer deleted the bugfix/flow branch December 27, 2019 13:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
4. to release Ready to be released and/or waiting for tests to finish bug feature: workflows
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Flow: fail to pick a third party entity event Flow: Browse the app store is not possible for users
5 participants