Editing nodes - inconsistency where the NAME is

It isn't I want to complain for the sake of, and I am surprised I hadn't picked this one up sooner.

When editing a node, there seems to a bit of inconsistency where the name is shown.

Usually the NAME is at the top.

But in the SLIDER node it is at the bottom. As I am sure it is with others.
It is just I got caught on it just now.

Why is it like this?
Just asking.

It is just there is the NAME and then the field in which you put text that is what is shown on the Dashboard.

Having them in consistent places would help silly people like me as I get stuck with editing the node and putting what I want to be shown on the dashboard in the NAME field by mistake sometimes and wonder what is going on.

Name is not, of course, mandated, in fact it is only a convenience as far as I can see in any node. So not too surprising that some authors have managed to move it around a bit.

But in general I agree with you, it offends my OCD for it not to be in a standard position.

1 Like

Ok. I'm glad I'm not the only one then.

In general we place the name last.... But... Not when the node has a library option (like function or template) or when there is an ever extendable list of options (like change or switch)

Haha, which just goes to show ... I tend to put it first. :scream:

Probably because I tend to use it as a descriptor more than an actual name. :smiling_imp:

Me too.

my 2$ - I prefer name first (like in real life introductions :wink: )

3 Likes

Maybe we need a style guide! :mage:

The reason we put it last is that it is mostly optional. While of course it's good practise to label your nodes for many they will be adequately described by being configured... As the other parts of config are more mandatory (or you wouldn't go in an change them) then they naturally had priority - so to be as consistent as possible we put the name last.
For things like function and template where you do need to name it if you want to save it in a library - then we put them at the top.

2 Likes

Still somehow my UX sense says it'd be better to have it on a consistent place given it's something common to most nodes. It'd also encourage a bit to making easier to maintain/understand flows.

I mostly give names to every node but I have to admit the ones I don't are bundled ones that generate a meaningful name (like the MQTT node).

1 Like

In the early days I used to add the name at the bottom of my config screen, because I considered my own properties much more important ...
However now I tend to put it on top, because for large config screens it becomes a bit lost at the bottom. Especially when e.g. an editableList is not filling the height correctly (due to some lack of CSS knowledge :shushing_face:), because then the name field might disappear from the screen ...

But when having a (useful) discussion like this, it somehow feels like an (optional) name field should have been (fixed) somewhere at the top of the config screen. Since most nodes have such a name field. But no need to discuss that (!!), since it would be too late to introduce that now anyway.