No, but is being noodled.
I'll give you a very simple one from my perspective:
Let's say I have something like this:
[
{
"id": "63048ae3e4754083",
"type": "link in",
"z": "1106c83583311c54",
"name": "link in 6",
"links": [],
"x": 195,
"y": 280,
"wires": [
[
"d370450c55398a57"
]
]
},
{
"id": "d370450c55398a57",
"type": "function",
"z": "1106c83583311c54",
"name": "Permissions Check on User",
"func": "\nreturn msg;",
"outputs": 2,
"timeout": 0,
"noerr": 0,
"initialize": "",
"finalize": "",
"libs": [],
"x": 360,
"y": 280,
"wires": [
[
"904556915f671323"
],
[
"d2c54fec30f6046b"
]
]
},
{
"id": "89bfb9d58e4ba1dc",
"type": "link out",
"z": "1106c83583311c54",
"name": "link out 17",
"mode": "return",
"links": [],
"x": 655,
"y": 280,
"wires": []
},
{
"id": "d2c54fec30f6046b",
"type": "function",
"z": "1106c83583311c54",
"name": "function 25",
"func": "\nreturn msg;",
"outputs": 1,
"timeout": 0,
"noerr": 0,
"initialize": "",
"finalize": "",
"libs": [],
"x": 535,
"y": 300,
"wires": [
[
"eeeb781cb6547aa6"
]
],
"l": false
},
{
"id": "904556915f671323",
"type": "junction",
"z": "1106c83583311c54",
"x": 520,
"y": 260,
"wires": [
[
"51c1c13e1d448a34"
]
],
"l": false
},
{
"id": "51c1c13e1d448a34",
"type": "junction",
"z": "1106c83583311c54",
"x": 550,
"y": 260,
"wires": [
[
"eeeb781cb6547aa6"
]
],
"l": false
},
{
"id": "eeeb781cb6547aa6",
"type": "junction",
"z": "1106c83583311c54",
"x": 580,
"y": 280,
"wires": [
[
"89989a6195691987"
]
],
"l": false
},
{
"id": "89989a6195691987",
"type": "junction",
"z": "1106c83583311c54",
"x": 610,
"y": 280,
"wires": [
[
"89bfb9d58e4ba1dc"
]
],
"l": false
}
]
Alright. I will be able to call this permissions check, which I can modify later, from any function node.
It can also be a "check permissions subflow", yes, with an output, a second function node following on the output.
But now I can just call this permissions check from a single function node if I want to. It will even turn some parts of the function node MORE visual than they were before without this. I can visually (elsewhere) work on what's called inside the function node.
That doesn't exist yet, right? That would indeed be very useful.
Sorry for the 3rd post in a row instead of editing.
Reading the war (in a non-harmful playful little cute chibi toys sense) in this topic took ~1 hour and a half. Quite interesting.
A war (in a non-harmful playful little cute chibi toys sense) of preferences is silly. The problem I can understand is if a new feature ruins the way Node-RED was previously used. It's made for whoever needs it, like me, not for everyone. A new Node-RED user would have a difficult time finding out about it, I don't even know every RED.util.whatever exists. I'll have to look it up someday, maybe there are cool things I don't know about.
This is like saying that env.get('project') breaks Node-RED, because you're supposed to exit the function node, get the env variable with a change node, go back into the (or a different) function node, continue. Why so masochistic? Why not let others simplify their work? "There's no visual indicator that the function node uses something from the environment". Yes. Many things would be cool, and we can ask for.
I appreciate the Node-RED team for giving possibilities for different types of developers. So many things are possible, in so many different ways.
3 Likes
Found a bug that it probably an issue present in other versions too.
-
A typed input with types ["node"] and value "empty" renders as this in both light/dark themes
-
A typed input with types ["node", "str"] (it just needs to be another type besides "node
) and value "empty" renders as this in both light/dark themes
-
A typed input with types ["node"] and with a value renders as this in both light/dark themes
As long as I pass types ["node", "str"] when creating typed inputs, it will render fine. But I would like to be able to pass only "node"
Have schools been bombed in this discussion? Have innocent civilians been displaced by this argument? Have people died in this debate?
I see no "war" here and I would please ask you do refrain from sensationalising a simple debate between adults.
Thank you.
P.S. for some folks the term "war" is kind of a trigger word. Something like saying "Trump is a ■■■■■■■ lunatic" - that also triggers some folks.
Sorry, I've edited my post to make it less triggering. I also have "war" in my name but I can't do anything about that one.
As a follow-up, I do think that a little visual indicator that the function node has a link call inside it is a good idea. I imagine it would be like the "comments inside" indicator but with a a little "link call" arrow. Maybe in the upper left.
3 Likes
What our parents call us is purely their fault. /s
Please raise an issue. Would be helpful to know if it's a preexisting issue - in which case it isn't specific to the beta.
From this point forward, posts unrelated to the beta will be hidden/deleted as off topic. This thread is meant to be about the beta - the more noise the harder it is to keep track of the actionable feedback.
2 Likes
