Improve Wait for Response documentation: clarify criteria, add field guide, fix examples and screenshots

[soniasachdeva]

Summary

• Rewrites the "has all of the words", "has the phrase" (renamed from "has a phrase" to match the live dropdown label), and "has only the phrase" descriptions with worked examples, verified against Glific.Flows.Case.do_execute/2 in glific/glific and the operatorConfigList labels in glific/floweditor.
• Adds two previously undocumented criteria that already exist in the live dropdown, "has multiple values" and "starts with", verified the same way.
• Adds an "Understanding the fields in this node" section near the top explaining every blank field in the Wait for Response dialog (criteria dropdown, value box, categorize as, multiple criteria rows, Result Name, no-response timeout), including a self-contained explanation of the automatic Other branch vs. the single All Responses branch, with screenshots for both states.
• Fixes the "has a number between" screenshot, which had a category misspelled "Kida" instead of "Kids", and aligns the text examples throughout the doc with the actual values shown in each existing screenshot (numeric ranges/cases, phone/email/media categorization and result names, regex example, etc.) instead of generic placeholders. Also documents that overlapping ranges resolve to the first matching row (verified on staging).
• Fixes duplicated/invalid "has an email" examples with distinct, valid email variations.
• Adds the create-a-result-variable + @results.<name>.url syntax to has audio, has video, has image, and has file, plus the longitude/latitude syntax for has location. Verified on staging that only the URL resolves for these (and for has media) — .caption does not work for any media type and has been removed.
• Adds a new "The no-response branch in your flow" section with a flow-editor screenshot showing the Yes / Other / No Response branches, and clarifies the difference between Other and No Response.
• Aligns vocabulary with the rest of the docs repo: "flow editor" instead of "canvas", "branch" instead of "exit point", plain "Note:" text instead of unused :::note admonition syntax.
• General grammar and plain-language cleanup throughout.

Test plan

• Preview locally with yarn start and check docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md renders correctly
• Confirm all screenshots display and match the text examples next to them

Fixes #665

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Expanded “Wait for Response” guidance with field explanations, branching behavior, matching rules, and response-type examples.
  • Added details for result variables, media URLs, location outputs, regular expressions, and no-response handling.
  • Clarified phone number and email validation examples.

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed on https://deploy-preview-666--glific-docs.netlify.app

[coderabbitai]

Note

Reviews paused

It looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the reviews.auto_review.auto_pause_after_reviewed_commits setting.

Use the following commands to manage reviews:

• @coderabbitai resume to resume automatic reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a single review.

Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:

• ▶️ Resume reviews
• 🔍 Trigger review

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Expanded the Wait for Response flow action documentation. Added field explanations and a response-type dropdown image. Documented text, numeric, phone, email, and regex matching rules with examples. Added result-variable paths for response data, including media and location fields. Explained no-response timing, reminders, and the distinction between the No Response and Other branches.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the documentation improvements to Wait for Response criteria, fields, examples, and screenshots.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description directly explains the documentation changes, verification work, screenshots, and linked issue.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The changes address issue #665 by clarifying criteria behavior, adding examples and fields, and documenting related response branches and variables.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The expanded documentation changes remain within the linked issue's explicitly defined scope for the Wait for Response page.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Line 76: Update the wording in both examples to use the singular term
“criterion” instead of “criteria,” while preserving the surrounding explanation
and examples.
- Around line 74-75: Add a blank line after each affected Markdown heading,
including “3. has the phrase” and the heading at the referenced additional
location, before its paragraph content. Preserve the existing heading text and
paragraph wording.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d94d1ff1-c405-4848-a44f-b2d4dbccbd71

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 88a8b89 and 93c235f.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_criteria.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 3

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Around line 128-136: Update the supported-format description in the “Wait for
the contact to respond” documentation so the 0-prefixed mobile format
0XXXXXXXXXX is identified as an 11-digit number. Preserve the other phone-number
formats unchanged.
- Around line 265-267: Update the repeated-reminder guidance near “up to 3
times” to document a concrete counter and exit condition that stops the loop
after three reminders, or remove the specific “up to 3 times” claim if no
supported limit mechanism exists. Keep the existing single-wait and no-response
branch instructions intact.
- Around line 107-111: The “has a number between” example contains overlapping
ranges at 60; update the displayed range definitions and accompanying
description to use disjoint boundaries, such as 20-59 for Adults and 60-100 for
Sr Citizens, while keeping the example’s categorization consistent.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 921864c7-691f-4d57-9515-7f32842da70f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 93c235f and 3bbbe8e.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)

• static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_no_response_branch.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_number_between.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Around line 266-268: Update the reminder example in “Wait for Response”
documentation to remove the unsupported “up to 3 times” claim, unless the
documented flow also defines a supported counter and exit condition. Keep the
chaining guidance consistent with the actual behavior.
- Around line 83-99: Insert a blank line immediately after each Markdown heading
from “has multiple values” through “starts with” in the response-criteria
documentation, including headings 2 through 6, so each heading is separated from
its following paragraph and satisfies MD022.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 1da2b491-4f0b-4e9e-97e4-3a35be9b3036

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3bbbe8e and 1f9b9ef.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/4`. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact
to respond.md:
- Around line 69-77: Update the “The Other branch” documentation and the
corresponding unmatched-value example around the numeric reply handling section
so they describe one consistent behavior: either state that unmatched numeric
replies such as 15 route to the automatic Other branch, or explicitly document
the numeric-specific invalid-value exception if that is the engine’s behavior.
Ensure both sections use the same routing terminology.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: deaada26-4892-425a-af2f-f62a9a541e44

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1f9b9ef and 3dd72ef.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)

• static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_all_responses_branch.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• static/img/flows/flows_wait_for_response_other_branch.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/4. Product Features/03. Flows/2. Flow Actions/04. Wait for the contact to respond.md

[tanuprasad530]

Result name does not become the result variable. Result name is the name of the variable that stores the result, (the value in the result, in this case being the contact's reply).

[tanuprasad530]

The current wording is slightly misleading. It implies that simply checking the Continue box automatically sends nudges, which is not the case.

Checking the Continue box only enables the workflow for configuring nudges. Users must still design and configure the nudge sequence, including details such as the number of nudges to send, the interval between them, and other related settings.

It would be more accurate to clarify that checking the box provides the option to configure nudges rather than automatically sending them.

[tanuprasad530]

Since the document is very long - link the section you are referring to, to "Handling no response", so that users are directed to the section, instead of them having to look at it.

[tanuprasad530]

This line needs to be worded better. It is more than just accepting any response. More importantly, it doesn't communicate that no validation or criteria matching is performed when all criteria rows are left blank. In the absence of any configured criteria, the node does not perform any validation or criteria checks, as none have been configured, and instead routes every response received at this node through a single All Responses branch.

Also - Clarify what you mean by "any reply". Currently, "accepts any reply" is also ambiguous—it is unclear what "any reply" refers to (e.g., text input, media, invalid input, etc.).

[tanuprasad530]

Screenshot is cut - please add complete screenshot.

[tanuprasad530]

Screenshot is cut - please add the screenshot that shows the node entirely.

[tanuprasad530]

could be phrased better: It is not "for replies....." it is "that captures the replies that don't match....."

[tanuprasad530]

Currently - this doesn't clearly communicate that the matching also works when the configured word appears within a phrase.

Kindly check and make the necessary changes to accommodate this clearly.

[tanuprasad530]

This is incorrect. Please remove this line.

From what I understand when I read this is the following:
has any of the words as the response criteria with no values added to check, accepts any text response from the user.
This cannot be configured this way. Requesting you to kindly try this out on the platform to understand this better.

[tanuprasad530]

Mention if the range boundaries are inclusive or exclusive.

[tanuprasad530]

These are also valid responses too.

You can test to verify this :)

[tanuprasad530]

Please include a note about the evaluation order, as it has a direct impact on routing. When multiple response criteria can match the same input, the node routes the response based on the first matching criterion. For example, if has media is listed before has image, an image response will be routed to has media, since it is evaluated first. The same behavior applies to text-based criteria where multiple validations could match the same response.

[tanuprasad530]

Right now it reads like only 05/09/1995 and 31/12/2000 are valid, which is not the case.
Kindly check and make the necessary changes.
Also, include invalid responses too, based on the regex added.

[tanuprasad530]

this should be "above" and not "below" as the screenshot is above.

[tanuprasad530]

This is the not the most optimal way to do this, as this significantly increases the number of nodes in the flow, and this is not scalable too.
This can be done with counter variables / result variables, with a looping cap.
Requesting you to kindly check. You can try this out perhaps and verify, to understand this better.

[tanuprasad530]

Also worth explicitly calling out that configuring reminder nudges depends on two key aspects:

1. The number of reminders/nudges to send.
2. The time interval between reminders (which may or may not vary across reminders/nudges).

The most appropriate configuration approach depends on the answers to the above.

[tanuprasad530]

There isn't a screenshot attached below, although the text refers to one. Please check and update this accordingly.

Additionally, it would be helpful to explain why simply connecting a send contact a message node to the No Response path and then looping it back to the wait for response node may not work as expected (or clarify the limitations of this approach).

[tanuprasad530]

This should come before you add the approach for sending reminder nudges.

[tanuprasad530]

The screenshot is cut. Please check and add a complete screenshot of the node, highlighting the pathway/branch you are referring to.

[tanuprasad530]

Same as my comment on line 292

A counter can be created, which simplifies the logic of doing this - compared to the logic currently added here in this line.

[tanuprasad530]

Please explicitly mention that any leading or trailing whitespace in the Value field is treated as part of the value being matched. For example, has only the phrase → Yes is different from has only the phrase → Yes (with a trailing space), as the extra space is considered during validation and can affect the match.

[tanuprasad530]

The purpose of this screenshot / explanation is missing. Kindly check and update.

[tanuprasad530]

Please add screenshots for all text response rule, like you have added for media, email, numeric inputs. Adding screenshots helps explain the examples better.
For reference - points 2 to 6 dont have screenshots attached to it.

[tanuprasad530]

The documentation being referenced here ("Other") is not easy to find in a long documentation. Instead of mentioning above / below - suggesting to link to that section.

[tanuprasad530]

You can remove this screenshot, because generally the longitude and latitude values are not referenced to surface to the user (like here, where it is added in a send message node).