Junction nodes think they are bigger than they are

General
1

I find that some of my junction nodes think they are bigger than they should be, so if they are not widely separated from adjacent nodes then they show the ! warning of overlapping nodes.

image

If I move the function node (or the junction) across a bit then it is ok. Is this a known issue?

[{"id":"b84ed6884f928965","type":"debug","z":"393002550c0f0617","name":"OP2","active":true,"tosidebar":true,"console":false,"tostatus":false,"complete":"true","targetType":"full","statusVal":"","statusType":"auto","x":790,"y":580,"wires":[]},{"id":"50a4c0dfb602dde1","type":"junction","z":"393002550c0f0617","x":660,"y":580,"wires":[["b84ed6884f928965"]]}]

node-red 3.0.2
nodejs 18.13.0
2

First I have seen or heard.

It should probably be raised as an issue (not sure if that would be on the node-red or nr-lint repo though)

3

My gut feel is nrlint - because it is making an assumption as to how 'big' the junction is in absence of concrete information.

That said, I'm sure I fixed that around the time we released Junctions originally...

Yup - Handle junctions in overlapping-nodes rule by knolleary · Pull Request #33 · node-red/nrlint · GitHub - and released in nrlint 1.1.0

What version are you using?

4

That was it, upgrading sorting it. Thanks.

5

Unfortunately, having upgraded to 1.1.0 (from 1.0.2) Chrome (or Firefox) is now permanently hogging the processor when I open localhost:1880.

6

Any suggestions on how I work out which function is causing the processor hogging? When I roll back nlrint it is ok.

7

You had hit this before (which is why you had stuck on the older version) - Node red tab hogging the processor in the browser · Issue #36 · node-red/nrlint · GitHub

You provided me your flows at the time and I used them to track down exactly which node it was - Node red tab hogging the processor in the browser · Issue #36 · node-red/nrlint · GitHub

I raised the upstream issue, but it appears 'upstream' has been abandoned and no fix is forth coming. We need to figure out a way around the issue... which is less than ideal.

8

Sorry Nick. I am getting too old. I did remember that there had been a problem but I didn't remember that I had rolled back as a workaround. I have removed that code and it is ok now.

That is a pain.

9

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.