# 🎉 Node-RED 5.0.0 Beta 6 available **URL:** \ **Category:** News\ **Tags:** docker\ **Created:** [30 April 2026 16:36 UTC](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/node-red-5-0-0-beta-6-available/100878 "2026-04-30T16:36:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 107

**Author:** ![AllanOricil](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex026/user_avatar/discourse.nodered.org/allanoricil/32/106911_2.png) [@AllanOricil](https://discourse.nodered.org/u/AllanOricil)\ **Post date:** [8 May 2026 00:48 UTC](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/node-red-5-0-0-beta-6-available/100878/107 "2026-05-08T00:48:25Z")

I've built working proof that Complete, Catch, and Status nodes don't have to break the visual wiring contract. My implementation replaces these implicit listeners with explicit output ports — errors, completion signals, and status updates all flow through wires, just like data. The argument that "these nodes already break the visual contract, so Link Call from function nodes is acceptable" doesn't hold when the contract can be restored. The direction should be fewer invisible connections, not more. > [@Explicit Error, Complete & Status Ports — Making Node-RED's Data Flow Honest](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/explicit-error-complete-status-ports-making-node-reds-data-flow-honest/100935): > > Node-RED's visual programming model has a simple contract: if you can see the wires, you understand the flow. But three built-in nodes break this contract — catch, complete, and status. They listen for events without wires, creating invisible connections that don't appear in the flow diagram. I've built a solution into the [@bonsae/nrg](https://bonsaedev.github.io/nrg/) framework that makes these connections explicit through optional output ports. The Problem Consider a typical error handling pattern: [inject] → [http request] … --- _[View the full topic](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/node-red-5-0-0-beta-6-available/100878)._