just keep an "old flow" with the old version of the node in it... then copy it to "test.json" and start node-red test.json... test and repeat...
This is all making my brain hurt a lot 
JFI I'm so messed up at my end that I've ended up with my main instance not even adding any propeties even when using the original 2.9.1 
I've had to hide my axe
But its very educational.........................
I think I'm there at last
Basically tried installing a 2.9.1 version (on a clean alternate install) - just got original properties screen with no checkboxes
npm installed duff 2.9.3 - got checkbox properties with none pre-checked
npm installed 2.9.1 again - back to original screen
npm installed new 2.9.4 - got checkbox properties with all pre-checked
So hopefully that's a valid test sequence
New PR with 2.9.4 on its way - can you change to 2.9.5 when finally merged into master
Going for a lie down
Will it be released as 2.10.0 when it gets to npm?
I've no idea - way above my pay grade
You certainly are! nice work & thank you.
Yes it will, as it includes backwards compatible functionality changes.
Meanwhile, I'll bump it to v2.9.5 as Simon requested.
1 Like
I'll start on the extra property and the check/uncheck all feature after my fortnight holiday in the Maldives
1 Like
yes as its a change/addition of function it should get a minor version bump on npm. hopefully all these test ones aren't on npm.
2 Likes
No, it won't be updated on npm until all the changes are in.
Ok - I've got a draft version which includes the extra yyyy-mm-dd propertie and two buttons to select/unselect all the checkboxes
it works (for me) BUT I couldn't find any nodes that use buttons so I'm a bit vary of doing a PR until others have had a say as to whether using plain buttons is good enough for a Node-RED node
What do people think?
My current development html file is here
[edit]30Jun 9:30 changed to right link [/edit]
2 Likes
Try <button type="button" class="red-ui-button">Button</button>
Edit: maybe you also find a font-awesome icon for that button
2 Likes
further to what @cinhcet suggested, you can use the browsers Devtools you can inspect a button similar & see what classes are applied. You can even add a class to your buttons directly in the Devtools to see what it looks like before you modify your source.
And side by side layout would help
1 Like
what about (to give you the flexibility you want and to make it the be and end all) - a single checkbox to include the selected options (so more than one) as msg properties so select mymonth, myday, myhour and it puts these out as msg.mymonth, msg.myday, msg.myhour - then they could just be grabbed in a change node and set however you want it to look on the way out ?
Craig
wooooooshsh.................... 
1 Like
If you get a taste for development, you will probably end up in devtools at some point.
If you are interested in exploring this, you can right-click a button you like the style of, click "Inspect" from the popup context menu - see what classes & style values are applied to that button then right-click your button -> inspect, then apply class and style changes (in the browser) to see the effect before you apply the changes to your source code (saves time restarting / refreshing etc)
Welcome to the team 
2 Likes
Thanks for the further info - had a play but I think less is better in this case rather than coloured
I jsut photo-shopped it to stick buttons on the top - which one do you prefer this or previous one with them at the bottom?
Or some other arrangement?
I don't know what you mean by this
Paul just wanted an easy method to select/unselect all the boxes so that's why I went for two buttons
Are you talking about a completely different design concept?
The way I read it is, why not just include or not include the extra values. Is there any real benefit from excluding individual items? I don't imagine there is a huge cost (in terms of CPU cycles) including all of these properties in every message, then the user can chose to (or not) use 1 or more of them. Seems like an awful lot of dev work for reasons I don't know what benefit (disclaimer - I haven't read the entire thread) But feel free to correct me if I am wrong by all means.
Ps If I were to go down the path suggested by @craigcurtin, I would personally wrap all those properties in their own object (e.g. msg.simpletime.hour, msg.simpletime.second, etc ) rather than directly in the msg.
Ps2, this is not a jibe or criticism of your work or direction, only a personal observation and an interpretation of what @craigcurtin said - I mean no offence.
1 Like
