Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Various flow related fixes - #18547
Conversation
10e2777 to
397da93Compare397da93 to
634e1c3Compare
blizzz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I always see "The configuration is invalid" even if it is not (existing and new rules). Despite saving works.
juliusknorr
commented
Dec 23, 2019
Ah indeed, seems to only occur with multiple checks. Fix pushed. |
blizzz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
juliusknorr
commented
Dec 24, 2019
Yes, I was thinking the same, but I also could not think of a rule that would make sense without any check. |
blizzz
commented
Dec 25, 2019
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. |
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <jus@bitgrid.net>
d6aa675 to
b2ba561Compare
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.