[UI] Scheduled workflow catchup=false option #3131
Conversation
|
/approve |
| onChange?: (config: { | ||
| trigger?: ApiTrigger; | ||
| maxConcurrentRuns?: string; | ||
| catchup: boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems that in BE, we use nocatchup and in FE we use catchup. They are having opposite values. Should we just use the same in BE and FE to avoid accidental mistake, e.g., like forgetting to take negation when transferring value...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A nit comment above. Otherwise /lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good point.
The only reason backend uses no catchup is to be backward compatible, because we need false as the default value.
But for UI, I think it's better we use catchup to avoid unnecessary concept coersion, what do you think?
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Bobgy, jingzhang36 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
* Update codegen instruction * Regenerate api * [UI] scheduled workflow catchup option * Show catchup in recurring run details page * Add help button to introduce swf catchup=false * Update snapshots and fix tests
Demo: https://youtu.be/33ZoXJHq3jA
/area frontend
Part of #3055
Verification
The feature works e2e:
All the four recurring runs have past start date and end date of from 10:00am to 10:02am and interval of 1 minute. Those with catchup = false has only one run, those with catchup = true has two runs.
Recurring run details page also shows catchup field.
/assign @jingzhang36
This change is