[Feature] need a "saved payload" for every connection and globally. NOT just the topic

[kennyma-eplus]

Motivation

When I have many emqx connection. It's different to find the payload json history

Detailed design

Like the saved "subscription". Please implement a saved "payload" for every connection & globally

[ysfscream]

Hi, thanks for your feedback.

Currently, MQTTX does support the storage of each payload, but I'm wondering if you are using the desktop version or CLI. For the GUI version of MQTTX, you can scroll through the message list to view historical messages. If you find this inconvenient, you could export the current connection as a JSON file and review the historical messages you need in that JSON.

[kennyma-eplus]

Hi, thanks for your feedback.

Currently, MQTTX does support the storage of each payload, but I'm wondering if you are using the desktop version or CLI. For the GUI version of MQTTX, you can scroll through the message list to view historical messages. If you find this inconvenient, you could export the current connection as a JSON file and review the historical messages you need in that JSON.

Hi - I am using the desktop version

Yes. I found there is historical messages.
But different topic will have different message payload.
When message become more and more. It's quite different to find the corresponding message with the topic.

It would be nice if I can save the message+topic with a name. And specify the payload can use for globally or in the current connection.

[ysfscream]

OK, I see, so you could try clicking the topic item. This action will filter messages based on the selected topic, helping you easily locate the relevant message.

[kennyma-eplus]

Oh... I think we have some mis-understand here

The payload message I mean is: the publish message and topic (request)
not the response one

[ysfscream]

Did you mean here? 👇

[kennyma-eplus]

Yes
it would be nice if I can save the topic+message with a name here

the message history has no relationship with the topic now

[ysfscream]

Okay, I understand. Some users thought the same way before, but based on our current 1.x structure, we still need to implement this optimization. However, it has been completed in the 2.0 version. We will finish this optimization as soon as possible for you. Thanks for the feedback.

Duplicate of #886