How to make it clear what generic events are doing in a workflow when there are multiple instances? #408
Unanswered
HenrikPoulsen
asked this question in
Q&A
Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
|
Hi there! So sorry you ran into this. Event node custom labels were always on the feature list, I just didn't have time to get around to it yet. I'll fast-track this and try to get it into the next release. I can't implement macro-templating in the titles just yet, as that's a much more complicated feature, but I will make them customizable ASAP. |
1 reply
|
Custom event node labels now live in xyOps v1.0.89 |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
So I have a backup style workflow on a machine, that basically rsyncs various folders to a backup device.
In the past I was doing bespoke events for each individual rsync, which was tedious.
So I'm looking at making one generic rsync event with a bunch of user fields to customize what it does.
The problem now however is that when I add multiple instances of this event to a workflow, you have no idea which one is doing what at a glance. They are all just named after the event label. No way to customize them that I can see.
So my workflow becomes full of identical seeming nodes with the same name, all just slightly different based on the user fields, but that's not very easy to see at a glance.
How are other people doing it? I would have imagined tbh that you could set a custom title for event instances in the workflow so it's more human readable.
I know there are the Note types, but that's just floating text so that doesn't make it easier to organize nodes etc based on what they do.
In my mind it would be nice if it the title had some templating so you could do "Rsync {SOURCE_DIR} to {TARGET_DIR}" and have that be the "official" event name, but then when you create an instance of it the templated sections get filled in with what that user field is set to. Would that make sense?
Feels like I'm missing something fundamental tbh
All reactions