Improve Wait for Response documentation: clarify criteria, add field guide, fix examples and screenshots by soniasachdeva · Pull Request #666 · glific/docs

soniasachdeva · 2026-08-03T07:56:42Z

Summary

Rewrites the "has all of the words", "has the phrase" (renamed from "has a phrase" to match the live dropdown label), and "has only the phrase" descriptions with worked examples, verified against Glific.Flows.Case.do_execute/2 in glific/glific and the operatorConfigList labels in glific/floweditor.
Adds two previously undocumented criteria that already exist in the live dropdown, "has multiple values" and "starts with", verified the same way.
Adds an "Understanding the fields in this node" section near the top explaining every blank field in the Wait for Response dialog (criteria dropdown, value box, categorize as, multiple criteria rows, Result Name, no-response timeout), including a self-contained explanation of the automatic Other branch vs. the single All Responses branch, with screenshots for both states.
Fixes the "has a number between" screenshot, which had a category misspelled "Kida" instead of "Kids", and aligns the text examples throughout the doc with the actual values shown in each existing screenshot (numeric ranges/cases, phone/email/media categorization and result names, regex example, etc.) instead of generic placeholders. Also documents that overlapping ranges resolve to the first matching row (verified on staging).
Fixes duplicated/invalid "has an email" examples with distinct, valid email variations.
Adds the create-a-result-variable + @results.<name>.url syntax to has audio, has video, has image, and has file, plus the longitude/latitude syntax for has location. Verified on staging that only the URL resolves for these (and for has media) — .caption does not work for any media type and has been removed.
Adds a new "The no-response branch in your flow" section with a flow-editor screenshot showing the Yes / Other / No Response branches, and clarifies the difference between Other and No Response.
Aligns vocabulary with the rest of the docs repo: "flow editor" instead of "canvas", "branch" instead of "exit point", plain "Note:" text instead of unused :::note admonition syntax.
General grammar and plain-language cleanup throughout.

Test plan

Preview locally with yarn start and check docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md renders correctly
Confirm all screenshots display and match the text examples next to them

Fixes #665

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

Documentation
- Expanded “Wait for Response” guidance with field explanations, branching behavior, matching rules, and response-type examples.
- Added details for result variables, media URLs, location outputs, regular expressions, and no-response handling.
- Clarified phone number and email validation examples.

…nse docs Rewrites the "has all of the words", "has a phrase" (renamed to "has the phrase" to match the live dropdown label), and "has only the phrase" descriptions with worked examples, verified against Glific.Flows.Case do_execute/2 behavior and the floweditor operatorConfigList labels. Adds a screenshot of the response-criteria dropdown. Fixes #665

github-actions · 2026-08-03T07:57:54Z

🚀 Deployed on https://deploy-preview-666--glific-docs.netlify.app

coderabbitai · 2026-08-03T07:58:32Z

Note

Reviews paused

It looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the reviews.auto_review.auto_pause_after_reviewed_commits setting.

Use the following commands to manage reviews:

@coderabbitai resume to resume automatic reviews.
@coderabbitai review to trigger a single review.

Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:

▶️ Resume reviews
🔍 Trigger review

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Expanded the Wait for Response flow action documentation. Added field explanations and a response-type dropdown image. Documented text, numeric, phone, email, and regex matching rules with examples. Added result-variable paths for response data, including media and location fields. Explained no-response timing, reminders, and the distinction between the No Response and Other branches.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the documentation improvements to Wait for Response criteria, fields, examples, and screenshots.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description directly explains the documentation changes, verification work, screenshots, and linked issue.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The changes address issue `#665` by clarifying criteria behavior, adding examples and fields, and documenting related response branches and variables.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The expanded documentation changes remain within the linked issue's explicitly defined scope for the Wait for Response page.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 2

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Line 76: Update the wording in both examples to use the singular term
“criterion” instead of “criteria,” while preserving the surrounding explanation
and examples.
- Around line 74-75: Add a blank line after each affected Markdown heading,
including “3. has the phrase” and the heading at the referenced additional
location, before its paragraph content. Preserve the existing heading text and
paragraph wording.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d94d1ff1-c405-4848-a44f-b2d4dbccbd71

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 88a8b89 and 93c235f.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_criteria.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

@results

…syntax, no-response branch - Add an "Understanding the fields in this node" section near the top explaining every blank in the dialog (criteria dropdown, value box, categorize as, Result Name, no-response timeout). - Fix "has a number between" screenshot: category name was misspelled "Kida", now "Kids", and align its text example (and the "has a number equal to" example) with what the screenshot actually shows. - Rewrite text examples across the doc to match the actual values in each existing screenshot instead of generic placeholders. - Fix duplicated/invalid "has an email" examples with distinct valid addresses. - Add the create-a-result-variable + @results.<name>.url/.caption syntax explanation to has audio, has video, has image, and has file, matching the existing has media section. Also add it for location. - Add a new "The no-response branch in your flow" section with a canvas screenshot showing the Yes/Other/No Response branches, and clarify the difference between Other and No Response. - General grammar and plain-language cleanup throughout. Continues #665

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 3

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Around line 128-136: Update the supported-format description in the “Wait for
the contact to respond” documentation so the 0-prefixed mobile format
0XXXXXXXXXX is identified as an 11-digit number. Preserve the other phone-number
formats unchanged.
- Around line 265-267: Update the repeated-reminder guidance near “up to 3
times” to document a concrete counter and exit condition that stops the loop
after three reminders, or remove the specific “up to 3 times” claim if no
supported limit mechanism exists. Keep the existing single-wait and no-response
branch instructions intact.
- Around line 107-111: The “has a number between” example contains overlapping
ranges at 60; update the displayed range definitions and accompanying
description to use disjoint boundaries, such as 20-59 for Adults and 60-100 for
Sr Citizens, while keeping the example’s categorization consistent.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 921864c7-691f-4d57-9515-7f32842da70f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 93c235f and 3bbbe8e.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)

static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_no_response_branch.png is excluded by !**/*.png
static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_number_between.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

@results

…repetition - Verified in staging Preview that has file, has audio, has video, and has image do not expose a working caption field (only has media does) — removed the unverified @results.<name>.caption lines for those four, keeping only the URL syntax. - Add "has multiple values" and "starts with" entries under Text-based responses, verified against Glific.Flows.Case do_execute/2 (has_multiple, has_beginning) — these were live in the dropdown/screenshot but undocumented. - Trim repeated explanation of the no-response checkbox between "Understanding the fields in this node" and "Handling no response". - Restore the original "every hour, up to 3 times" example as stated fact rather than a generic placeholder, per confirmation that pre-existing doc content should be trusted as-is. Continues #665

…nges - "criteria is" -> "criterion is" (singular) in the has the phrase, has only the phrase, and starts with examples. - Fix phone format label: 0XXXXXXXXXX is 11 digits (0 prefix + 10 digits), not 10. - Verified on staging that overlapping "has a number between" rows resolve to the first matching row, not the more specific one. Added a note documenting this for the existing 20-60 / 60-100 example instead of changing the ranges, since the screenshot already shows them as originally set up. Continues #665

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 2

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Around line 266-268: Update the reminder example in “Wait for Response”
documentation to remove the unsupported “up to 3 times” claim, unless the
documented flow also defines a supported counter and exit condition. Keep the
chaining guidance consistent with the actual behavior.
- Around line 83-99: Insert a blank line immediately after each Markdown heading
from “has multiple values” through “starts with” in the response-criteria
documentation, including headings 2 through 6, so each heading is separated from
its following paragraph and satisfies MD022.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 1da2b491-4f0b-4e9e-97e4-3a35be9b3036

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3bbbe8e and 1f9b9ef.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

…lds section Verified on staging: the automatic Other branch is only added once at least one criteria row is filled in. With every row left blank, the node shows a single "All Responses" branch instead. Documented both states with screenshots directly in "Understanding the fields in this node", without referring forward to the no-response branch section. Continues #665

…rding - Add a blank line after every ### heading in the file (MD022), not just the newly added ones, for consistency across the whole page. - Reword the reminder-chaining explanation: "chaining as many times as you like" read as contradicting "up to 3 times". Clarified that there's no automatic counter -- the reminder count is simply how many Wait for Response nodes you chain, so three chained nodes give the three reminders in the example. Continues #665

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Around line 69-77: Update the “The Other branch” documentation and the
corresponding unmatched-value example around the numeric reply handling section
so they describe one consistent behavior: either state that unmatched numeric
replies such as 15 route to the automatic Other branch, or explicitly document
the numeric-specific invalid-value exception if that is the engine’s behavior.
Ensure both sections use the same routing terminology.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: deaada26-4892-425a-af2f-f62a9a541e44

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1f9b9ef and 3dd72ef.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)

static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_all_responses_branch.png is excluded by !**/*.png
static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_other_branch.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

…on syntax - Replace "canvas" with "flow editor" (the term used everywhere else in this repo; "canvas" appeared nowhere else). - Replace "exit point" with "branch" ("branch" is already established in Split By docs; "exit point"/"exit" appeared nowhere else). - Convert both ":::note" admonitions to plain "Note: ..." text -- no doc in this repo uses Docusaurus admonition syntax, and this same file's own pre-existing convention is a plain "Note:" prefix. No content/claims changed, only wording to match established style. Continues #665

tanuprasad530 · 2026-08-04T17:19:03Z

Last updated to be changed to August 2026

Updated to August 2026 @tanuprasad530

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

♻️ Duplicate comments (1)

docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md (1)
69-77: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟡 Minor

Resolve the existing unmatched-response routing contradiction.

Line 75 says unmatched replies go to Other. Lines 127, 135, and 147 say unmatched numeric replies are treated as invalid. Confirm the runtime behavior, then use one term consistently. If invalid numeric replies route to Other, state that explicitly.

Also applies to: 125-127, 133-137, 144-147
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md around lines 69 - 77, Reconcile the documentation around the
“Other” branch and unmatched numeric replies by confirming the runtime routing
behavior, then update the sections near “The Other branch” and the
numeric-response guidance consistently. If invalid numeric replies route to
“Other,” state that explicitly everywhere; otherwise replace the conflicting
terminology with the actual behavior.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Line 292: Update the reminder chaining guidance around the no-response path to
require a Send Message node before each subsequent Wait for Response node, so
every reminder is actually sent. Clarify that the final Wait for Response node’s
No Response path should exit to the intended next flow step or termination
point.

---

Duplicate comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Around line 69-77: Reconcile the documentation around the “Other” branch and
unmatched numeric replies by confirming the runtime routing behavior, then
update the sections near “The Other branch” and the numeric-response guidance
consistently. If invalid numeric replies route to “Other,” state that explicitly
everywhere; otherwise replace the conflicting terminology with the actual
behavior.

🪄 Autofix

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: b9cd128b-4a9e-499b-900a-a10d650e2a60

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3dd72ef and 62f8214.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

- The numeric response sections (has a number, has a number between, has a number equal to) said an unmatched reply is "treated as invalid" with no stated destination, contradicting "The Other branch" section which says unmatched replies always route there. Reworded all three to consistently say the reply routes to the automatic Other branch. - The reminder-chaining explanation only described connecting the No Response branch to another Wait for Response node, which extends the wait but never actually sends anything. Added the missing "Send the contact a message" node required between each pair, so the described Send message -> Wait for Response chain actually produces the reminders it claims to. Continues #665

- Consistent quoting on cross-references (Response Types, Handling no response) to match The Other branch / The no-response branch in your flow elsewhere in the doc. - has media's first screenshot never had its "categorized as" value stated in the text, unlike every other section (phone, email, number, regex all state theirs). Added it for consistency. Verified: zero MD022 violations (markdownlint-cli2), all image paths resolve, all 4 cross-references match real section labels. Continues #665

- Bold "Other" consistently in the numeric-response sections, matching its styling everywhere else it's used as the branch name. - Align terminology: has-a-number-equal-to called its rows "cases" while every other section calls them "rows" -- switched to "rows". - Quote category labels ("Kids", "Teens", "Adults", "Sr Citizens") consistently with every other categorize-as example in the doc. - Restructure the reminder-chaining explanation from one dense five-sentence paragraph into numbered steps, matching the doc's own "How to configure" convention for sequential instructions. Clarify that each repeated pair connects to the previous node's No Response branch, not the original one. - Re-verified: zero MD022 violations, all image paths resolve, no curly quotes, all four "see X above/below" cross-references still point in the correct direction after restructuring. Continues #665

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 07:57 Inactive

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md Outdated

Comment thread docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md Outdated

soniasachdeva self-assigned this Aug 3, 2026

soniasachdeva requested a review from SangeetaMishr August 3, 2026 08:15

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 09:12 Inactive

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

soniasachdeva removed the request for review from SangeetaMishr August 3, 2026 09:24

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 09:47 Inactive

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 10:04 Inactive

Revert phone digit-count wording to match original doc

2c178c0

soniasachdeva mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2026

Improve Wait for Response documentation: clarify criteria, add missing fields and examples #665

Open

3 tasks

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 10:13 Inactive

Tech4Dev added 2 commits August 3, 2026 15:48

Add bold label to the multiple-criteria-rows bullet for consistency

1f9b9ef

Remove media caption syntax, keep only the URL syntax for has media

9588505

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 10:21 Inactive

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

Comment thread docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md Outdated

Explain the automatic Other branch in the fields overview section

7637329

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 10:28 Inactive

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 10:36 Inactive

soniasachdeva requested a review from tanuprasad530 August 3, 2026 11:40

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 11:52 Inactive

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 3, 2026 11:59 Inactive

soniasachdeva changed the title ~~Clarify has-all/has-phrase/has-only-phrase criteria in Wait for Response docs~~ Improve Wait for Response documentation: clarify criteria, add field guide, fix examples and screenshots Aug 3, 2026

tanuprasad530 reviewed Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Update Last Updated date to August 2026

62f8214

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 5, 2026 05:06 Inactive

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Aug 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md Outdated

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 5, 2026 05:22 Inactive

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 5, 2026 06:03 Inactive

github-actions Bot deployed to pull request August 5, 2026 08:13 View deployment

Uh oh!

Conversation

soniasachdeva commented Aug 3, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Test plan

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 3, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviews paused

Walkthrough

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tanuprasad530 Aug 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

soniasachdeva Aug 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

soniasachdeva commented Aug 3, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading