# \[Feature Request\]Help prevent crossing wires from Switch node

**URL:** <https://discourse.nodered.org/t/feature-request-help-prevent-crossing-wires-from-switch-node/75233>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [15 February 2023 12:02 UTC](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/feature-request-help-prevent-crossing-wires-from-switch-node/75233 "2023-02-15T12:02:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 51

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![knolleary](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex026/user_avatar/discourse.nodered.org/knolleary/32/3_2.png) [@knolleary](https://discourse.nodered.org/u/knolleary)\
**Post date:** [20 February 2023 11:43 UTC](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/feature-request-help-prevent-crossing-wires-from-switch-node/75233/51 "2023-02-20T11:43:11Z")

</div>

Just playing catch up on this whole thread.. but as I write I see @TotallyInformation has posted along the lines of my gut feeling here.

When you have 'check all rules' enabled (the default), you can have multiple 'otherwise' rules, and each acts based on the rules above it.

For example, given the rules:

1. `== A`
2. `== B`
3. `otherwise`
4. `== C`
5. `== D`
6. `otherwise`

If you inject 'A' you will get an output on 1 and 6  
If you inject 'C' you will get an output on 3 and 4

Confusingly, if you inject 'RANDOM', you only get an output on 3 - I expected that to trigger both 3 and 6.

So there is already some inconsistent (and possibly incorrect) behaviour around the `otherwise` rule that has been there for _years_.

But regardless of that, this proposal would change what an `otherwise` rule at the top of the list does - which is a breaking change for existing flows. That means we have to be **really really** sure this is solving a real issue. I'm not sure "avoiding crossed wires" is a good enough reason to potentially break flows.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/feature-request-help-prevent-crossing-wires-from-switch-node/75233)._