Well, I'll bow to your superior knowledge. I only first starting coding 38 years ago and that was in assembler where I could design my own State Engines with Macros before moving on to C and C++. Now that's an inefficient language. So I guess you win that round. But if I check for a condition and the result of that condition being True leads to an action that happens every single other time - both the change from a predefined Default value to a New one (Tick) AND a Transition (Also Tick) - then in my opinion, it's bad coding when it's not consistent. I'd certainly have got a chewing out if I wrote something like that before I was in a position to chew someone else out who wrote something like that.Neal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:29 pmAssumptions -- I have been doing this for a long time. My first lines of code were written over 4 decades ago. The hardest thing to learn about computers and coding is to not make assumptions. If your code depends on items happening in a specific order, and you do not have control over those items, you need to check that they occurred as you wanted. If you want your banner to show after the tiles are loaded, you need to check the status of "Loading tiles". Now the documentation does assume some basic knowledge of webpage design and coding. That level of knowledge is needed for the level of control and customization that it gives you.
We'll have to agree to disagree on how default values should work. If they do not exist unless a failure condition causes them to be created: bad coding dependency and worse coding environment that relies on that.
To not have a default value in place to compare with the updated value that is the very reason for needing the Transition that you specifically request to blend between those two values on the first time the test is checked because "Oops, I haven't put the original Default in there yet, so I can't compare it to the New one, so I can't do a Transition" is bad code.
There should no need to make up excuses for extenuating circumstances of what should be loading when and why and having to wait for a browser to do its thing. Either it does what it does every time, or throws an error message to tell us why it fails. It doesn't just shrug and move on.
Well, it can if it want things to stay quiet for users who don't need to care 99.9% of the time, but maybe under the hood there could be a log we could check? I think Hopki said there will be some debugging tools in V7.