Nodes displaying as 'flow' in flow library


This is essentially the same issue as was mentioned in this thread but I wanted to raise this again for more visibility since it seems that issue has been considered solved:

It seems that the Node-RED flow library has been listing newly-registered packages which contain nodes as though they were flows instead of nodes.

For a "node", I expect to see an npm package name (node-red-contrib-xxx) in the title and version / download count in the bottom bar for each cell in the Node-RED Library page. Instead, we're seeing that for some node packages, the npm package description appears in the title with no version / download count in the bottom bar. The coloring on the bottom bar is the same as that which appears for flows rather than nodes and, when clicked, the target link goes to a URL with "" (with a dead link / HTTP 404) instead of "" in the name.

Here are some examples of packages for which I've seen this behavior:

  • node-red-contrib-verisure
  • node-red-contrib-edge-integration
  • @opendxl/node-red-contrib-dxl-epo-client
  • node-red-contrib-configurable-interval

For the magichrome-led-node mentioned in the original post, it seems that just by doing a second release of the nodes package, moving from a pre-release 0.9.0 version to a 1.0.0 version, that the package started appearing in the Node-RED Library page with the expected content. It seems like node packages should not have to be released with a major version greater than 0 in order to avoid this issue, though, since a number of other node packages with a major version number of 0 do not seem to show the problem.

Are there any particular rules which have been introduced recently for how node package metadata should be constructed so that the Node-RED Flow Library can identify the packages properly?



I notice this is happening to quite a number of recent node submissions. Any thoughts on why this is happening? The same nodes appear to work fine from within the Node-RED console (palette).


Sorry - not had a chance to investigate properly. Will try to look into it tomorrow.

Great! Thank you very much.

This has now been fixed. Thanks for reporting.