-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 594
I need error msg #968
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
I need error msg #968
Conversation
I still need the msg.payload when there is an error, not only when everything is going well.
|
I can understand why you may want it - but for naive users I think it is better to not send anything when there is an error, rather than send a (normally) empty [] response that would look like a valid response unless you check for an error. So I'm not (yet) convinced that this a change we should make. You could also use the error to create a dummy payload [] if you need to forward it on - but yes your fix would do that for you. |
I agree that it shouldn't send an error but I do think it should throw an error |
I thought that even if there is an error, send a message.
I would suggest a slightly different approach - with largely the same result. You could event remove the node.error() - if you wanted it to be less chatty I created a PR: #1062 |
I consider myself a naive user yet I can't imagine why I would want my flows to just stop when there's a problem. Is there any way that my code can be notified of the error and do something in response? |
It does send an error - it can be caught with the catch node - which is the standard way we do it for most nodes. |
I still need the msg.payload when there is an error, not only when everything is going well.
Proposed changes
Checklist
grunt
to verify the unit tests pass