Skip to content

Conversation

@juliusknorr
Copy link
Member

@juliusknorr juliusknorr commented Dec 23, 2019

@rullzer rullzer mentioned this pull request Dec 23, 2019
18 tasks
@juliusknorr juliusknorr requested a review from kesselb December 23, 2019 14:43
blizzz
blizzz previously requested changes Dec 23, 2019
Copy link
Member

@blizzz blizzz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I always see "The configuration is invalid" even if it is not (existing and new rules). Despite saving works.

@juliusknorr
Copy link
Member Author

I always see "The configuration is invalid" even if it is not (existing and new rules). Despite saving works.

Ah indeed, seems to only occur with multiple checks. Fix pushed.

Copy link
Member

@blizzz blizzz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, works now!

Just, an other thing: unconditional flows (without a check) were OK before. Rejecting them could potentially break older once… Not that I have an idea where they would be useful. That might come back to us. Otherwise, +1.

@blizzz blizzz dismissed their stale review December 23, 2019 15:15

resolved

Copy link
Contributor

@kesselb kesselb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  • Fix app store link and hide it for users (fix #18495 #18500)
  • Flow: Invalid rule will emit a log message #18496

👍

@skjnldsv skjnldsv added 4. to release Ready to be released and/or waiting for tests to finish and removed 3. to review Waiting for reviews labels Dec 23, 2019
@juliusknorr
Copy link
Member Author

Just, an other thing: unconditional flows (without a check) were OK before. Rejecting them could potentially break older once… Not that I have an idea where they would be useful.

Yes, I was thinking the same, but I also could not think of a rule that would make sense without any check.

@blizzz
Copy link
Member

blizzz commented Dec 25, 2019

Just, an other thing: unconditional flows (without a check) were OK before. Rejecting them could potentially break older once… Not that I have an idea where they would be useful.

Yes, I was thinking the same, but I also could not think of a rule that would make sense without any check.

Config switch :p

Okay. Existing ones should run, but not be modifyable anymore. Let's just be sure to document it in the release notes.

@rullzer rullzer mentioned this pull request Dec 27, 2019
13 tasks
@rullzer rullzer merged commit f3232fc into master Dec 27, 2019
@rullzer rullzer deleted the bugfix/flow branch December 27, 2019 13:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

4. to release Ready to be released and/or waiting for tests to finish bug feature: workflows

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Flow: fail to pick a third party entity event Flow: Browse the app store is not possible for users

6 participants