Subflows within subflows - just asking

[Trying_to_learn]

I am just thinking and this question came up:

Ok, a subflow is a specific grouping of nodes that do something and have been put into a subflow because it is used a lot of times in different places.

So is it good practice to put subflow nodes within other subflows?

[tve]

If it makes sense to you from an organizational perspective then yes, you can definitely nest subflows.

[Trying_to_learn]

Are there problems with doing that?

Are there advantages?

I'm wanting to check if there are/n't any traps with doing it.
Or benefits.

[Colin]

As always, use the KISS principle. If it makes your life simpler then do it, otherwise don't.

[Trying_to_learn]

Yeah, agreed.

But - as an example - this is what I have:

(All the lines are blurred where to draw them for subflow definition)

I am making a routine for my mobile devices and their power levels.
(Nothing worse than a flat battery when you want to use a device)

So the devices send messages so I can see if they are needing power/to be charged.

Each green box (you can't see the entire bottom one) is for each device.

Each has 1 input and 3 outputs.

So the idea is that each (green) box can be made into a subfow.
But (OCD kicking in) I could put all 3 of those subflows into a subflow - which: yes would only be used once, but would not / does not need to be sprawled out on the screen all the time.

I would have to move that switch node into the bigger subflow, but that isn't too difficult.

(Curiosity sucks) and it is just wondering if that is a good idea.
Given the bigger one would only have 3 subflows in it (and a switch node) there is little chance of anything going wrong.

Oh, and as you also may notice/see those green boxes already have a subflow in them.
So it will be a 3 layer deep nest in the subflow.
(I also have to stop using that word: subflow)

I'll shut up here. I think I am not getting any more information imparted.

[Colin]

Normally I would not use a subflow unless I was going to use it more than once.

[Trying_to_learn]

I agree.

But my curiosity just doesn't know how to stop.

[TotallyInformation]

This is where "collapsible groups" would be nice

I can see why you might want to put those flows into sub-flows - I wouldn't wrap them in another sub-group myself because I'd find it more annoying than helpful to have to dig 2-levels deep to see what they do. I'd simply put the calls to the 3 sub-flows in a group.

But then I've not found a need/desire to use sub-flows for a long time - pretty much since groups were introduced in fact. If I have a section of flow that I want to "hide", I treat a group as kind of a function, wrap it in a group and use a link-in as the input. Then I can put it somewhere more out of the way.

As always, Node-RED provides lots of options

[Trying_to_learn]

Thanks.

In the mean time I have done a great job of shooting myself in the foot.

Now I'm sitting here trying to rewrite the messages.