Hi,
this has been flagged once in the following post and was reported to have improved. It seems it either reappeared or the improvement wasn’t extensive enough.
@Vernalis & @ipazin FYI as you both exchanged in aforementioned topic.
PS: Trying to mitigate this it seems that it’s actually a regression. Worth to note that when only the rule is present, it works as expected.
Best
Mike
Hi @mwiegand , do you know if the inclusion of comments in a String Manipulator node ever worked without throwing that warning/error?
Probably because I’m constantly “abusing” 
String Manipulator with throwing in undocumented java one-liners , I’m always getting this warning anyway, and the way to resolve it is to put the whole statement inside a string( ) expression so that the parser knows what is being returned.
e.g.
this gives the error:
// A comment
"hello world"
but this resolves it:
string(
// A comment
"hello world"
)
I agree with you that adding comments should not affect the outcome, but I just assumed that the warning was the default behaviour for any situation/complexity that made the parser unsure of what it was dealing with.
Hi @takbb, I only roughly recall, but my mind might trick me here, that pure text comments did work. Though, I really believe my mind plays a trick on me as I believe to recall the Rule Engine Node which, when freshly placed on the workflow area, contains comments even containing commented rules.
So I’d lean towards your conclusion that it never worked and the “improvement” was not thought through sufficiently (no complaint but a mere observation).
