Silent fail without error message when moving a node to a parent which does not allow child nodes of that type

[Andrei-]

Which Umbraco version are you using?

17.1.0

Bug summary

Trying to move a child node to a parent which does not allow children of moving child's type.
I would expect an error message telling me the issue, but I get no feedback.
The operation is silently failed though, as I can see in browser inspector tools that the api returns the proper error.

Specifics

Reproduced in chrome and firefox

Steps to reproduce

Expected result / actual result

Trying to move a child node to a parent which does not allow children of moving child's type.
I would expect an error message telling me the issue, but I get no feedback.
The operation is silently failed though, as I can see in browser inspector tools that the api returns the proper error.

[github-actions]

Hi there @Andrei-!

Firstly, a big thank you for raising this issue. Every piece of feedback we receive helps us to make Umbraco better.

We really appreciate your patience while we wait for our team to have a look at this but we wanted to let you know that we see this and share with you the plan for what comes next.

• We'll assess whether this issue relates to something that has already been fixed in a later version of the release that it has been raised for.
• If it's a bug, is it related to a release that we are actively supporting or is it related to a release that's in the end-of-life or security-only phase?
• We'll replicate the issue to ensure that the problem is as described.
• We'll decide whether the behavior is an issue or if the behavior is intended.

We wish we could work with everyone directly and assess your issue immediately but we're in the fortunate position of having lots of contributions to work with and only a few humans who are able to do it. We are making progress though and in the meantime, we will keep you in the loop and let you know when we have any questions.

Thanks, from your friendly Umbraco GitHub bot 🤖 🙂

[AndyButland]

This is a more general case of #20451 so I'll mark it as a duplicate. There's a pending PR to resolve this #21646, which will also handle documents, so I expect this will form part of 17.3,