The only thing I worry about is clicking the wrong option without any confirmation and deleting the wrong line. As it is now you have to click away from the selector to get the action completed. Which is confusing until you get used to it. Also you can delete multiple lines in one go today. So if they add this then they should still keep the current method I think.
The UI certainly needs a refresh and these kind of ideas are cool I think. Small changes that can make a difference without having to switch out the underlying technology which we understand is more problematic.
Isn't that effectively what cut/paste already does? You can cut a line and paste it elsewhere (eg. move it). But unfortunately it's not possible to copy it.
Yeah it could be called "move" instead, might make more people understand it. Cut implys that you can then past it multiple times, which you can't. Cut also gets people asking for copy when @bravenel has said it too dirty to do currently.
Pasting the same action more than once would have all sorts of unpleasant consequences. It is tantamount to making a copy. This sort of copy is more like a clone, and not really an independent action. Cut/Paste works pretty easily because the single instance of the action is simply moved in its place in the order of actions, not copied.
This would not work. For example, a condition in one would be the same in condition in all. No way to change it in just one. There would be the same problem with device and variable selections. You just have to trust me that this is a non-starter.
For sure the copy would need to be edited, just as a cloned rule must be edited to reference different devices etc. But it would still save time building certain rules with complex custom actions which take loads of clicks to produce and fewer to edit.
Fair enough of course. You know the code, we don't.
That's the point, it can't be successfully edited. It would truly be a clone of the original action. If you changed a device selection in it, that would change all copies of that action also. So that just wouldn't work.
When you clone a rule, you get an independent copy of the rule. So that does work. It's just copying an individual action within a rule that is not going to work.
The effort to actually implement a copy action function would be quite large, and is simply not going to be a priority for where to spend effort.