Conversation
|
Yes, yes, yes! |
|
I'll just go ahead then. |
spacegaier
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To prevent confusion 😄. There are a few more places where such a comment might make sense.
| service_data?: { | ||
| [key: string]: any; | ||
| }; | ||
| service_data?: Record<string, unknown>; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| service_data?: Record<string, unknown>; | |
| // "service_data" is kept to be backwards-compatible. New coding should be using "data" instead. | |
| service_data?: Record<string, unknown>; |
| @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ export interface EntitiesCardEntityConfig extends EntityConfig { | |||
| action_name?: string; | |||
| service?: string; | |||
| service_data?: Record<string, unknown>; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| service_data?: Record<string, unknown>; | |
| // "service_data" is kept to be backwards-compatible. New coding should be using "data" instead. | |
| service_data?: Record<string, unknown>; |
|
Is that something where similarly to the way we handle core integrations we want to deprecate that in half a year or so and force users to switch to |
In core we had I guess this is similar; which probably should stick for a long long time. |
50e3f4f to
b5e9e79
Compare
|
I'm thinking maybe The thought being that maybe we want a Thoughts? |
|
Agreed. Can leave for now and then deprecate |
Proposed change
In the spirit of streamlining and designing away the most common user errors.
Does anyone even remember why it's
service_datain the frontend, if there ever was a reason?Should be backwards compatible.
Todo:
Architecture discussion??service_dataintodatain GUI editors.Type of change
Example configuration
Additional information
Checklist
If user exposed functionality or configuration variables are added/changed: