Why do we generate workflow YAML client-side?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Elixir
- Stars
- 296
- Forks
- 86
- Avg merge
- 1d 13h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 50
Description
Summary
Currently workflow YAML is generated client-side in JS (WorkflowToYAML). This led to regressions (e.g. empty YAML until reload when generate_workflow_code wasn’t called). For projects we already generate YAML on the server (ExportUtils.generate_new_yaml/2).
I’m wondering if there was a specific reason we went with client-side generation for workflows. Would it make sense to move this to the server for consistency and reliability?
Benefits if we moved it
- Avoid race conditions / reload issues
- Consistent with project YAML export
- Simpler LiveView (no pushEvent / JS roundtrip)
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by comparing the client-side WorkflowToYAML path with the server-side ExportUtils.generate_new_yaml/2 implementation, including where generate_workflow_code is called. Trace the LiveView pushEvent and JavaScript roundtrip, then define completion as reliable workflow YAML generation without the reported empty-until-reload behavior.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- elixir, javascript
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100