Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Replacing a node with a group workflow when it receives a visualizer mapping generates a bogus source node #1792

Closed
PathogenDavid opened this issue May 11, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1946
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Milestone

Comments

@PathogenDavid
Copy link
Member

This is something that came up when Gonçalo and I were discussing #1769

Starting with the following workflow: ReplaceNodeWithGroupWorkflowIssue.zip

ReplaceNodeWithGroupWorkflowIssue

Select the Untitled PublishSubject node. Replace it with a GroupWorkflow node (IE: using the "Replace" option from the context menu in the Toolbox.)

This results in the following within the main workflow:

ReplaceNodeWithGroupWorkflowIssue-Replaced

But within the group workflow you'll see there's a bogus Source2 (presumably added for the dashed connection for the visualizer mapping.)

image

This source shouldn't be here (and in fact does nothing) as visualizer mappings conceptually apply to the node itself rather than any of its sources.

@glopesdev glopesdev added this to the 2.9 milestone May 28, 2024
@glopesdev glopesdev added the bug Something isn't working label May 28, 2024
@glopesdev
Copy link
Member

glopesdev commented Aug 2, 2024

@PathogenDavid related to this, I found out that grouping the PublishSubject with GroupWorkflow (rather than replacing) results in a different (and possibly unwanted) behavior:

image

Basically the current behavior of grouping is to eliminate all dashed connections (ExternalizedProperty, VisualizerMapping, etc) to the newly created group. This is probably not ideal and we might want to revisit this in a separate proposal.

@PathogenDavid
Copy link
Member Author

@glopesdev Yeah that doesn't seem ideal. I created a separate issue for it here: #1959

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants