Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Workflow UPP observer: More robust conditions on when to request new workflow #316

Closed
1 task
srallen opened this issue Dec 5, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed
1 task
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@srallen
Copy link
Contributor

srallen commented Dec 5, 2018

Package lib-classifier

Feature or Issue Description
Right now, the workflow store will request a new workflow if the UPP changes. There are conditions where we might not want this to happen even if the UPP changes: If the user signs in in the middle of annotation, possibly others. For Gravity Spy though, we definitely want to update the workflow back to default on sign out regardless on if they're in the middle of classification. There might be other scenarios we can think of....

To Dos

  • Example
@srallen srallen added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 5, 2018
@rogerhutchings
Copy link
Contributor

rogerhutchings commented Dec 6, 2018

Gravity Spy is an edge case. We could come up with a plugin-style system by creating a dictionary of alternative rules where the keys are project / workflow ID, and do something different if we get a match. There's a definite need to be able to do different things for different projects, but I don't want to end up with a mess of if/else statements again.

@srallen
Copy link
Contributor Author

srallen commented Dec 6, 2018

Yes GS is, though if it's by workflow or project, then it should just be defined in their respective configs. I was thinking more along the lines of feature detection, i.e projects with workflow assignment, (Gravity Spy, Snapshot WI) enabled should clear and load the default workflow on sign out. This might be the only exception case, but I thought we should have the discussion to think it out first.

@srallen
Copy link
Contributor Author

srallen commented Nov 15, 2019

Closing in favor of #1132

@srallen srallen closed this as completed Nov 15, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants