Conversation
10e2777 to
397da93
Compare
397da93 to
634e1c3
Compare
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.
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.
Yes, I was thinking the same, but I also could not think of a rule that would make sense without any check. |
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
b2ba561
Compare
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.