Ben Fogelson04/06/2020, 10:36 PM
Ben Fogelson04/06/2020, 10:48 PM
Ben Fogelson06/08/2020, 10:05 PM
, for easy interaction. Another conclusion was that many users were actually just looking for easy ways to add groups of tasks to an existing flow, for which we have encouraged the use of factory functions and possibly
. Lastly, one outstanding item was people who wanted to use subflows to combine multiple “full-scale” flows. For this, we’ve introduced a task that can launch other flows via the Server/Cloud API and are working on a first class “flow-to-flow” dependency structure with in the API. So across these three - adding groups of tasks to a flow; visualizing groups of tasks; and combining flows - it appears that the use cases that motivated subflow feature requests will be met without needing to introduce the complexity of a subflow object. Would those constructs meet your needs as well?
Ben Fogelson06/08/2020, 11:59 PM
to swap out an entire subflow for another one with the same root and terminal tasks.
) that would allow users to build up their desired level of complexity