This has been brought up before but I can’t understand how this is still an issue. And as far as I am concerned it is an ‘issue’, I can’t see how this can be rationalised as a design choice.
Why, when there is an error in your automation or script do you get no indication that it has failed to load except by looking at the logs?
This seems ridiculous to me. Especially consider the following:
- Make a very small update to a script. So small that you reasonably assume nothing could possibly be wrong. Except that a typo does in fact cause it to be invalid
- The typo however does not cause the config check to fail (if you even decide to use that first - it was a tiny change you made after all).
- Using ‘Reload Scripts’ gives you a nice reassuring big green tick.
- Several hours later you wonder why something isn’t working.
Yes, that scenario is littered with ‘user error’ and ‘bad practises’ but isn’t that what good software guards against where possible?
The logs ‘know’ there was an error, why oh why can’t the frontend?
And before anyone says anything (you have to be so careful in an on-line forum) the subject is slightly misleading, I know that strictly speaking it does not fail ‘silently’ and this isn’t a whinge or a rant it is a genuine appeal for an explanation.
Of which there may be a good one.
There often is…