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

fix(core): resolve Valid workflow issues #47

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 16, 2024
Merged

fix(core): resolve Valid workflow issues #47

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 16, 2024

Conversation

Deepika516
Copy link
Collaborator

resolve issues so that it can create valid workflow

GH-42

Description

Do this Condition & When this happens condition is not optional so without this the workflow cannot be saved.workflow should be valid when saved .

Fixes #42

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Intermediate change (work in progress)

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

  • Test A
  • Test B

Checklist:

  • Performed a self-review of my own code
  • npm test passes on your machine
  • New tests added or existing tests modified to cover all changes
  • Code conforms with the style guide
  • API Documentation in code was updated
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

resolve issues so that it can create valid workflow

GH-42
Copy link

==== Karma Test Coverage ====
Statements: 26.42% ( 125/473 )
Branches : 10.71% ( 24 /224 )
Functions : 12.09% ( 15 /124 )
Lines : 26.46% ( 122 /461 )

const valueTypeIsAnyValue =
node.node.state.get('valueType') === ValueTypes.AnyValue;
isValid = columnExists && (valueExists || valueTypeIsAnyValue);
break;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't this be part of the respective node classes?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes it should be , can u plz tell me the approach which i should follow sir, but sir we need to give this in emergency so

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approving for now assuming this would be fixed as part of a separate issue

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sure sir ,I will create the seprate issue of this .

Copy link

==== Karma Test Coverage ====
Statements: 26.2% ( 125/477 )
Branches : 10.71% ( 24 /224 )
Functions : 12% ( 15 /125 )
Lines : 26.23% ( 122 /465 )

@yeshamavani
Copy link
Collaborator

@Deepika516 create a new issue and link it here

@Deepika516 Deepika516 linked an issue Feb 16, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@yeshamavani yeshamavani merged commit 8f2571d into master Feb 16, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
4 participants