Skip to content

[DYN-8648] Curve Mapper node gets into spurious sticky warning state#16115

Closed
ivaylo-matov wants to merge 3 commits intoDynamoDS:masterfrom
ivaylo-matov:DYN-8648-Curve-Mapper-node-gets-into-spurious-sticky-warning-state
Closed

[DYN-8648] Curve Mapper node gets into spurious sticky warning state#16115
ivaylo-matov wants to merge 3 commits intoDynamoDS:masterfrom
ivaylo-matov:DYN-8648-Curve-Mapper-node-gets-into-spurious-sticky-warning-state

Conversation

@ivaylo-matov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Purpose

To fix this case: https://jira.autodesk.com/browse/DYN-8648

Updating the warning/error message on the CurveMapper node based on valid or invalid input.

CurveMapper_WarningBubbles

Declarations

Check these if you believe they are true

  • The codebase is in a better state after this PR
  • Is documented according to the standards
  • The level of testing this PR includes is appropriate
  • User facing strings, if any, are extracted into *.resx files
  • All tests pass using the self-service CI.
  • Snapshot of UI changes, if any.
  • Changes to the API follow Semantic Versioning and are documented in the API Changes document.
  • This PR modifies some build requirements and the readme is updated
  • This PR contains no files larger than 50 MB

Release Notes

Updating the warning/error message on the CurveMapper node based on valid or invalid input.

Reviewers

@reddyashish
@zeusongit

FYIs

@achintyabhat
@dnenov

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

See the ticket for this pull request: https://jira.autodesk.com/browse/DYN-8648

@zeusongit zeusongit added this to the 3.5 milestone Apr 7, 2025
{
Warning(Properties.Resources.CurveMapperWarningMessage, isPersistent: true);
}
else if (!anyInvalid)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you add a comment here on why we need 2 different valid checks, and what are they addressing.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

VMDataBridge.DataBridge.GenerateBridgeDataAst(GUID.ToString(), AstFactory.BuildExprList(inputValues))
);

if (!InPorts[0].IsConnected || !InPorts[1].IsConnected || !InPorts[2].IsConnected || !InPorts[3].IsConnected || !InPorts[4].IsConnected)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we use: if(InPorts.Any(x => !x.IsConnected))?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

@reddyashish
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

This needs more testing and will be part of next release.

@reddyashish reddyashish removed this from the 3.5 milestone Apr 7, 2025
@jnealb jnealb requested a review from mjkkirschner April 14, 2025 15:01
@ivaylo-matov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

This is outdated based on the latest discussion. Please refer to the updated proposal in #16141

@reddyashish
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Closing this for the same reason.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants