Simplify adding success forwards to pipes#614
Merged
Conversation
This is the same way Stijn did it, but I think my method is a lot simpler.
Matthbo
requested review from
Matthbo and
stijnpotters1
and removed request for
Matthbo
July 20, 2026 15:18
stijnpotters1
left a comment
stijnpotters1
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be merged after #613 is implemented and combined with this or can these be merged seperately to master?
This because the source handles are commeted out currently
Member
|
I think the point of this PR was to at least partially cover #613 as well. |
Matthbo
approved these changes
Jul 23, 2026
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Now the success only gets added in the frank-node, instead of adding it on every node and removing it sometimes.
The receivers now don't have a success (which is correct).
I discovered a new bug and made an issue for it: #613