Conditional Chain Command Block checks block behind it, not last command in chain

Please do not mark unreleased versions as affected.
You don't have access to them yet.

--- I am a robot. This action was performed automatically.

Intended.

But why on earth would it be? It makes no sense. It seems very much like a bug, or at least an oversight. I think most people using them would agree with me, as well. This seems to have no purpose, and is more annoying than anything else.

The conditional block checks if the one behind it successfully executed. Blocks don't communicate which side they came from.

Still, even if this is intended, it should be changed. It seems more like a bug than anything, and it causes more problems than it solves. A small change to the code (knowing MC and Java, maybe ~5 lines tops) and this wouldn't even be a problem anymore.

Never would it be to your advantage to use this behavior

What? No. The current implementation allows off-chain conditions to impact chain execution. This would not easily be possible with your suggestion.

But since when does anyone actually use it? I can't even think of a use case for it off the top of my head. It could be advantageous in a couple specific situations, but better to need a workaround for a rare situation than for a common one.

Another problem with your suggestion: How should conditional impulse/repeat command blocks behave? They don't have a previous command block in the chain.

I'm not even sure those are necessary, tbh. I at least haven't found many uses for them, though I know they're probably out there. All I'm suggesting is that it really makes more sense for the conditional system to move down the chain, rather than strictly position-based.

The issue with conditional impulse/repeating blocks is actually a really good point.

I do still wish chain conditionals behaved differently, but you're right, there doesn't seem to be a clean way to do it with the other block types.