Allow rerunning of workflow invocations #13534
Conversation
| @expose_api_raw_anonymous_and_sessionless | ||
| def invocation_build_for_rerun(self, trans: GalaxyWebTransaction, invocation_id, **kwd): | ||
| """ | ||
| GET /api/invocations/{encoded_invocation_id}/build_for_rerun | ||
|
|
||
| Returns a workflow file formatted according to the 'run' export style, prepopulated with | ||
| inputs and parameters from a previous invocation. Note the result is heavily tied to the UI | ||
| (e.g. which history is currently being used). | ||
|
|
||
| :type history_id: encoded history ID. If not supplied, defaults to current history. | ||
| :param history_id: str | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| decoded_workflow_invocation_id = self.decode_id(invocation_id) | ||
| workflow_invocation = self.workflow_manager.get_invocation(trans, decoded_workflow_invocation_id, eager=True) | ||
| if not workflow_invocation: | ||
| return None | ||
|
|
||
| workflow = workflow_invocation.workflow | ||
|
|
||
| history_id = kwd.get("history_id") | ||
| history = None | ||
| if history_id: | ||
| history = self.history_manager.get_accessible( | ||
| self.decode_id(history_id), trans.user, current_history=trans.history | ||
| ) | ||
| ret_dict = self.workflow_contents_manager._workflow_to_dict_run( | ||
| trans, | ||
| workflow.stored_workflow, | ||
| workflow, | ||
| history=history or trans.history, | ||
| invocation=workflow_invocation, | ||
| ) | ||
| return format_return_as_json(ret_dict, pretty=True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO we shouldn't add an API endpoint here, this can and should use the existing API.
Hm, ok. The front-end expects the form parameters to be submitted in a certain way, I assume you are not suggesting changing that. So the process of patching the workflow |
|
The contents of services.js should only be responsible for fetching things from the API. How I would do this is to add an additional |
|
Nice! +1 to Marius's suggestions, but this is going to be nice! |
simonbray
force-pushed
the
rerun-inv
branch
4 times, most recently
from
ac8e746 to
59ce23f
Compare
mvdbeek
changed the title
Implements #11340.
So far I just have a basic API test; should I try to write a selenium test as well?
How to test the changes?
(Select all options that apply)
License