Add Workflow Title and Annotation sections #18762
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
hujambo-dunia
changed the title
hujambo-dunia
requested review from
dannon,
mvdbeek,
ElectronicBlueberry and
ahmedhamidawan
|
@ElectronicBlueberry this commit will have negative downstream effects? |
|
I know this is WIP, but one tiny styling improvement could be made by placing the run and cog button in the same line as the wf name:
as opposed to:
One way to achieve this would be a On a somewhat related note, I always felt that using the same styled header as a
|
davelopez
reviewed
Sep 10, 2024
mvdbeek
reviewed
Sep 11, 2024
mvdbeek
reviewed
Sep 11, 2024
hujambo-dunia
commented
Sep 19, 2024
hujambo-dunia
commented
Sep 19, 2024
|
@itisAliRH Wanted your review on changes to the |
mvdbeek
reviewed
Sep 25, 2024
mvdbeek
reviewed
Sep 25, 2024
mvdbeek
reviewed
Sep 25, 2024
hujambo-dunia
force-pushed
the
enhance-workflow-detail
branch
from
09a4eae
to
2b5f1ac
Compare
|
Ahmed: Minor change requests
|
hujambo-dunia
force-pushed
the
enhance-workflow-detail
branch
2 times, most recently
from
471ca88
to
fa118ba
Compare
Co-authored-by: Ahmed Hamid Awan <qe66653@umbc.edu>
…kflows Landing Page (instead of design consistency with Workflows Annotation History Panel). Added 'show-actions' Boolean parameter to focus user on running the workflow as consistent with their intended behavior from the prior step; when 'show-actions' equals False, all actions are hidden (note: not same terminology as technical 'read-only' as 'show-actions' also prohibits Share/Favorite which are separate from being able to Edit a workflow).
Co-authored-by: Marius van den Beek <m.vandenbeek@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marius van den Beek <m.vandenbeek@gmail.com>
…ocations Page and Workflow Run Form Page
…ocations Page and Workflow Run Form Page
- No `in_panel` prop in route anymore - In `lib/galaxy/managers`, all we need is the `workflow.id` so on the front end, for the run form, we can call `useWorkflowInstance(workflow_id)` - Adjust props and variables in the workflow header to cater for all edge cases such as whether it is rendering for run form or invocation view, workflow is owned or not, is published or not etc. - Minor style improvements
The `BButton :to`, was replaced with a `BButton @click` because the styling in `WorkflowNavigationTitle` worked better with a non `<a>` BButton (using `:to` turns the `<button>` into an `<a>`)
We removed the switch/view history button from the workflow run form version of the header, but it actually makes sense to keep it there since it lets the user know which history is going to be the input for the workflow (it changes as you change the history). In the invocation version of course it always made sense because then it is scoped to the history that was used as input for that invocation.
ahmedhamidawan
force-pushed
the
enhance-workflow-detail
branch
from
248ab10
to
aca94f4
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #18711.
Now, we have two types of views: Run Form version (left) and the Invocation View one (right)
Visually, there are numerous ambiguous ways to solve this issue.Initial Implementations
Version 3takes into account Marius' comment for simplicity but maintaining consistency with Workflows Landing Page design_.v3: Expandable Portlet component with site consistency for Workflows Landing Page
Version 2takes into account Ahmed's comment for consistency with Tool Form page header design.v2: Expandable Portlet component with site consistency
Version 1is illustrated below as an "expandable portlet" solution. Other ideas/possibilities: "Mouse Hover Overlay-Menu", "Mouse Click Overlay-Menu", "Only Display Description", and so forth. After general solution is agreed, will complete "code clean-up" and test script fix process. Constructive ideas/comments welcome.v1: Expandable Portlet component
How to test the changes?
(Select all options that apply)
License