feat: workflow reruns #78
Conversation
- persist run inputs and expose rerun APIs so backend can replay prior configurations - add 'rerun last/this' affordances in run selector + builder and auto-fill forms from saved inputs - refresh execution inspector UI (event cards, toasts, payload parsing) to match the new rerun/debug flow
- remove temporary toast preview trigger and debug layout selector - lock event inspector to stacked-soft layout with flatter diagnostics card - fix timeline duration + step-forward behavior so seeking reaches real run end
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| setIsLoading(true) | ||
| try { | ||
| await api.workflows.commit(workflowId) | ||
|
|
||
| const runId = await useExecutionStore.getState().startExecution( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new rerun flow delegates to executeWorkflow, which always calls api.workflows.commit(workflowId) before starting a run. When handleRerun invokes this helper with a stored workflowVersionId, the intent is to replay an archived execution without touching the current builder state. If the current graph contains unsaved or invalid changes, the commit step will fail and the rerun cannot start even though the stored version is valid. This makes “Run again” unreliable whenever the editor has incomplete work. Consider bypassing the commit when a specific versionId is provided (or when the builder isn’t dirty) so reruns operate on the captured version independently of the current graph.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
betterclever
changed the title
Summary
Testing
Solves #56