It is quite challenging to review and address the errors and warnings (design time) due to the lack of a clear grouping structure. Introducing a grouping mechanism, similar to what we have for the MxAssist Performance Bot, would be highly beneficial. Grouping based on code would greatly improve readability.
I appreciate your idea to introduce a grouping mechanism for errors and warnings. This improvement would significantly enhance readability and streamline the review process, making it more efficient.
Agree. Some warnings like labels not being translated in a multi-lingual app can clutter the warning pane very quickly. You can argue that every static label should then be translated in every available language, but if you have some debug-pages or backend modules without requiring translations this will be very time consuming with very little added value.
Grouping them based on code/type enables more focus on important warnings (e.g. unused variables, microflows that don't need permissions, etc).
I would also suggest to add in addition:
-"Limit to uncommitted" filter option. This is already available in the best practice recommender, this could be very helpful if you have an existing project with a lot of warnings: you can gradually improve and at least make sure no new warnings are introduced
Yes, I completely agree with Chris de Gelder. Regularly clearing all warnings is a good practice for maintaining a clean project, and it leads to better maintainability. Additionally, it would be helpful if the warnings pane had a UI appearance similar to the performance bot, with grouping structure based on its code. This would improve readability and make it easier to navigate and address specific warnings.
My advice is to solve all warnings always It will help you to clean-up your microflows and find copy-paste errors.