Fix variable manipulation and serialization#8547
Open
ClementPasteau wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
Open
Fix variable manipulation and serialization#8547ClementPasteau wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
ClementPasteau wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
Conversation
91533e7 to
01ff462
Compare
01ff462 to
20328e9
Compare
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Before:
Enregistrement.de.l.ecran.2026-04-28.a.10.17.09.mov
After:
Enregistrement.de.l.ecran.2026-04-28.a.10.27.23.mov
Multiple fixes:
boolean variable conditions initial value was "true" instead of "True"
is "True"
runtime, because != "True". This is kept as-is so no breaking change.
"False" in the editor (normalize-on-load, not at serialization time).
When adding a condition "Boolean variable is true/false" after having
manipulated a "Number variable = x" the instruction was being serialized as
"variable/=" ("=" was being pre-populated from the previous instruction
because of the relational operator instead of being reset). It means the
JSON contained "=" on a boolean condition.
valid operator for the new instruction type (e.g. "True" for boolean, "="
for number/string)
because != "True". This is kept as-is so no breaking change.
automatically convert it to "False" in the editor
When editing a variable name inline (e.g. changing from var1 (number) to
var2 (boolean)), the operator parameter was being corrected using the
metadata of the old instruction type (captured when the inline editor
opened), not the new one. This meant the reset picked operators from the
wrong list — for example switching to a boolean variable could still end up
with "=" in the JSON.
type at apply time, so the operator is always validated against the right
list
handle changing a variable type either in the variable declaration (ex:
switch number->boolean) or in the instruction itself (changing from
var1(number) to var2(boolean))
they don't belong)
to be with the new type
setupInstructionParameters now validates and corrects existing operator
values, not just empty ones. Previously it only filled in a value when the
parameter was empty, so a stale "startsWith" left on a NumberVariable
condition (for example) would be silently kept. Now any value not in the
valid set for that operator type is replaced with the first valid one.