Update scheduled-events.md#10963
Conversation
Added this as result of this slack thread: https://mendix.slack.com/archives/CA82XPUQG/p1770300321312099 This could also be added to Mx10 and Mx9 documentation as it is unrelated from the Mx version. I asked in that slack thread for people to review it.
|
This PR would require an approval from the PM Jonathan Diehl. See related slack thread, where I asked him to review this. |
| * The renamed scheduled event (`SE_Old`) will be treated as a new, previously unseen, event and will default to disabled. | ||
|
|
||
| {{% alert color="info" %}} | ||
| Be mindful of this behavior when renaming scheduled events and reusing names within the same application. If you rename a scheduled event and introduce a new one with the original name, verify the enabled/disabled states of all affected scheduled events after deployment to ensure they match your intentions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this really a good recommendation. It's a bit generic.
Surely it is better to say not to rename scheduled events but to create new ones?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with the formulation as is. It warns the developer "be mindful" and gives good recommendations "ensure [affected scheduled events] match intentions"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. I'll approve and publish.
MarkvanMents
left a comment
MarkvanMents
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR.
We don't normally copy changes back to Mx10 and Mx9 unless they are very high priority, but I've made an exception this time.
Approving and merging.
| * The renamed scheduled event (`SE_Old`) will be treated as a new, previously unseen, event and will default to disabled. | ||
|
|
||
| {{% alert color="info" %}} | ||
| Be mindful of this behavior when renaming scheduled events and reusing names within the same application. If you rename a scheduled event and introduce a new one with the original name, verify the enabled/disabled states of all affected scheduled events after deployment to ensure they match your intentions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. I'll approve and publish.
3 participants
Added this as result of this slack thread: https://mendix.slack.com/archives/CA82XPUQG/p1770300321312099
This could also be added to Mx10 and Mx9 documentation as it is unrelated from the Mx version.
I asked in that slack thread for people to review it.