Closed trevorcampbell closed 10 months ago
I don't see any issue with doing this, but the benefit is not major after increasing the timeout on the wait action. I'll leave this issue open for now but don't have any plans to make a PR for it in the near future.
Actually I prefer keeping them separate just for code readability at this point. That's a bigger benefit than any issue with a 60,000 second timeout.
I don't think there's a need for a separate waiting action with a timeout (which has previously timed out prior to the waited action completing ). For some reason these needed to be triggered separately originally, but I can't quite remember why... but I'll think about it a bit before doing it.
Same change to R book if we do this.