N8n Workflow: Edit Fields (Set) Error Routing Bug

Nov 16, 2025 by Alex Johnson 50 views

Are you experiencing issues with error handling in your n8n workflows, specifically with the "Edit Fields (Set)" node? This article delves into a reported bug where errors aren't correctly routed to the designated error path when using the "Continue (using error output)" setting. We'll explore the problem, provide steps to reproduce it, and discuss the expected behavior versus the actual outcome. This guide also provides debugging information, offering a comprehensive understanding of the issue and its implications. Let's dive in and understand the intricacies of this bug and how it affects your workflow's error handling capabilities.

Understanding the Issue: Edit Fields (Set) Node Error Routing

The core of the problem lies within the n8n "Edit Fields (Set)" node and its interaction with the error handling mechanism. When a workflow incorporates this node and is configured to "Continue (using error output)," one would anticipate that any errors encountered during the node's execution would be directed to the dedicated error path. However, a bug has been identified where the error data, instead of following the intended error path, unexpectedly flows through the normal, or success, path. This deviation can lead to incorrect data processing and potentially disrupt the overall workflow logic, causing unexpected results or failures.

The user-submitted details provide a clear breakdown of the problem: a malformed data field of type Object is introduced to intentionally trigger an error within the "Edit Fields (Set)" node. As expected, an error parameter is outputted as a result of the malformed data. But, instead of the error flowing to the designated error path as configured in the node settings, the error output is incorrectly directed to the standard workflow execution path. This behavior contradicts the design intent of the "Continue (using error output)" setting, which should ensure that errors are handled separately to prevent disruption of the success path. In essence, the bug compromises the reliability of error handling, as it fails to properly isolate and manage errors, leading to potential data corruption or incorrect workflow outcomes.

This misrouting of errors can result in significant problems. It can lead to the processing of incomplete or invalid data, potentially corrupting any subsequent steps in the workflow. It also makes it difficult to track and address errors, as the user will not be able to differentiate between successful and error outcomes without careful monitoring. Further, it disrupts the expected behavior of the workflow, making it less predictable and harder to debug. The implications are far-reaching, from data integrity issues to operational inefficiencies. The bug potentially undermines the node's ability to handle exceptions effectively, leading to the need for manual inspection of error conditions that should be automatically handled.

The impact of misrouted errors in your workflow

The impact of this misrouting can be quite substantial, leading to a variety of issues:

Data Corruption: Incorrect data can lead to data integrity problems in your workflow.
Workflow Logic Errors: Incomplete or invalid data can corrupt successive steps.
Debugging Challenges: The workflow's behavior is disrupted, making it harder to debug.
Inefficiency: Manual inspection of errors can reduce operational effectiveness.

Steps to Reproduce the n8n Edit Fields (Set) Bug

To effectively demonstrate the bug, the process involves setting up a basic n8n workflow specifically designed to highlight the error in the "Edit Fields (Set)" node. Here are the steps necessary to reproduce this error and observe the incorrect behavior. The following steps require an active n8n instance:

Workflow Creation: Begin by creating a new n8n workflow from scratch. This workflow will serve as the testing ground for the "Edit Fields (Set)" node bug.
Node Definition: Insert a single "Edit Fields (Set)" node into your new workflow. This node is where the error generation and subsequent routing issues will be observed.
Error Output Configuration: Within the "Edit Fields (Set)" node's settings, make sure to set the "Continue (using error output)" option. This setting is crucial because it dictates how the node will handle any errors encountered during its execution. The bug's incorrect behavior is specifically related to this setting.
Field Definition and Malformation: Within the "Edit Fields (Set)" node, define a field named data of type Object. The value of this field needs to be malformed. The most direct method is to introduce an invalid data format, which should ensure the object parsing fails, thus triggering an error. For example, you could input text that is not valid JSON or object structure.
Workflow Execution: Run the workflow. Execute it to initiate the process and observe the output. This step allows you to trigger the error within the "Edit Fields (Set)" node.
Observation of Error Routing: Examine the workflow's execution results. Specifically, confirm that the error output generated by the malformed data appears in the normal execution path instead of the error path, as expected by the "Continue (using error output)" setting. This observation confirms that the bug is occurring.

By systematically following these steps, you can reliably reproduce the error and witness the flawed behavior of the "Edit Fields (Set)" node, where errors fail to route correctly to their designated error path.

Expected Behavior vs. Actual Outcome

Let's clarify what should happen (expected behavior) versus what actually happens (actual outcome) to better understand the bug.

Expected Behavior

When the "Edit Fields (Set)" node encounters an error (e.g., due to malformed data), the "Continue (using error output)" setting should route the error information to the designated error path.
The workflow should gracefully handle the error, allowing for error-specific processing or logging without disrupting the normal workflow execution path.

Actual Outcome

Instead of being routed to the error path, the error output appears in the normal execution path.
This results in incorrect data flow, potentially causing subsequent steps to process invalid data, leading to workflow failures or incorrect results.
The error handling mechanism fails to isolate and manage errors effectively, disrupting the workflow's intended logic.

Debugging Information

To better understand the underlying causes of this bug, here's some information to help with debugging:

n8n Version: The bug has been reported in n8n version 1.119.2. It's important to verify if this behavior persists in newer versions.
Node.js Version: The environment uses Node.js version 22.21.0. This information can be useful for compatibility checks.
Database: The database is PostgreSQL. The database doesn't directly cause this bug, but it helps with understanding the full operational environment.
Execution Mode: The workflow is running in queue mode. The execution mode might influence error handling behavior.
Hosting: The n8n instance is hosted on Google Cloud Run. This hosting configuration may provide additional context for the issue.

Additional Debugging Tips:

Logging: Enable detailed logging to capture more insights into the error-handling process.
Workflow Structure: Simplify your workflow to isolate the problem. Remove unnecessary nodes and focus solely on the "Edit Fields (Set)" node to eliminate potential interference.
Version Check: Ensure your n8n version is up-to-date and check the release notes for any fixes related to error handling.

Addressing and Resolving the Error Routing Issue

To mitigate and resolve the bug, consider the following actions:

Manual Error Handling: Implement error handling within the workflow itself. Add conditional checks to verify the output data's integrity and use a branching logic (e.g., IF node) to redirect flows based on the presence of error parameters.
Node Updates: Keep n8n and its nodes updated to ensure the latest bug fixes. Software updates frequently contain patches that resolve known issues, and updating can sometimes resolve the bug automatically.
Community Support: Engage with the n8n community for support. Report your findings on the community forums, providing all relevant details to help others experiencing the same problem.
Feature Requests: If the current behavior does not align with your workflow's requirements, you can submit a feature request on the n8n community or GitHub, suggesting improvements to the error handling within the "Edit Fields (Set)" node.
Workflow Redesign: If the bug significantly affects your workflow's performance, consider reorganizing the workflow to minimize the impact of the faulty node. For example, you may choose to execute the Edit Fields (Set) node separately, or after other data validation steps.

Mitigation Strategies

Validation Nodes: Add validation nodes before the “Edit Fields (Set)” node to ensure data quality.
Error Logging: Implement error logging to facilitate the analysis of routing issues.
Conditional Logic: Use conditional logic to reroute data as needed.

By following these steps, you can effectively manage the issue until a permanent fix is provided.

Conclusion

In summary, the bug in the n8n "Edit Fields (Set)" node, where errors are not correctly routed to the designated error path when "Continue (using error output)" is specified, poses a significant challenge to reliable workflow execution. The inability of the error handling mechanism to isolate and manage errors disrupts the workflow, leading to potential data corruption and unexpected outcomes. While the root cause might be complex, the impact on workflow reliability and data integrity is evident. This article provided a detailed analysis, including steps for reproducing the bug, expected versus actual behavior, and debugging tips. To address this issue, users should implement robust error handling strategies within their workflows, stay updated with the latest n8n releases, and engage with the community for support and potential feature requests. By proactively addressing this issue, users can minimize the impact of the bug and ensure the smooth execution of their workflows.

For more insights and to stay updated with n8n developments, visit the n8n community forum.