feat(workflow): mark the pinned version in the revision history - #8577
Draft
yangzhang75 wants to merge 4 commits into
Draft
yangzhang75 wants to merge 4 commits into
yangzhang75 wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
A public workflow follows the author's latest content, as publishing has
always done. This adds the other state: the author pins the version they
have now, and the public copy stops moving until they pin again.
`is_public` stays the on/off switch; `published_content` is the pin, NULL
while following. `WorkflowPublishService` owns the two states, and three
endpoints expose them: POST and DELETE `/workflow/pin/{wid}` to pin and
unpin, GET `/workflow/publish-status/{wid}` for what the author is shown.
Publishing and unpublishing move through the same service, so unpublishing
drops the pin rather than leaving a private workflow carrying one.
Two paths are narrowed so a pin can hold. A save wrote the whole row back,
so a publish landing while a save was in flight was silently rolled back,
and a request body could set the publish columns itself; saves now write
only name, description and content. Creating a workflow clears the publish
columns for the same reason.
Nothing reads the pinned copy yet: every workflow is in the following
state it is in today, and nothing on screen changes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
With a version pinned, a workflow has two copies: the author's working copy and the frozen one on public show. This routes every read that serves a viewer without granted access through the frozen copy, and freezes the name and description with the graph. `WorkflowPublishService.publicCopyOf` returns the three fields as a group, so a surface cannot pick up the published graph under a title the author has not published; `WorkflowAccessResource.hasGrantedAccess` is the seam that decides which copy a caller gets. Granted access -- owner, shared, project member -- keeps tracking the author's latest, because sharing is not publishing. Name and description freeze because they are as public as the graph: if only the graph froze, a report about a title could be answered by editing the title while the pinned copy still advertised it. Routed through it: opening a workflow, the hub's read, Clone, Duplicate, `/workflow_name`, `/workflow_description` and the size a listing shows. A workflow that follows the author's latest -- every workflow today -- is served exactly what it is served now. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Search and the listings it feeds were reading the author's live columns, which for a pinned workflow is the one copy the public cannot open. A draft would turn up in a public search under a title nobody has seen, and the card would advertise a name the detail page does not show. Each filter is now applied to whichever copy the caller may see: `onVisibleCopy` builds the same filter twice -- over the live columns for rows the caller was granted access to, over the frozen ones for rows they reach only because the workflow is public -- and ORs the two. A disjunction over bare columns rather than a CASE, so each side stays eligible for its own fulltext index. Unpinned public rows fall back to the live columns, so a following workflow searches exactly as it does now. Listings carry two more things from the same query: the frozen name and description to show a viewer without granted access, and whether the copy on show is behind the author's working copy. `constructWhereClause` takes `includePublic` for this; the other builders accept and ignore it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The author can pin a version, and their working copy then moves on. This gives them a way back to what the public is seeing: pinning leaves an anchor in the revision history they already use, and the panel marks it as the one currently public, so restoring the published version is the restore they already know. The anchor is a version row whose delta is the identity patch, so replaying it returns exactly what was pinned however many edits pile up after. An existing row cannot stand in: a version row replays to the content as it was *before* the change it records. Pinning content that is already the pinned one reuses its anchor rather than adding a twin, and the read that decides takes a row lock so two pins racing cannot both insert. Two consequences the anchor forces: - It must not start the version panel's aggregation window. It lands seconds after the save it freezes, and the panel folds close-together versions into the newest, which would hide the author's own save behind a row they never made. - The revision history is now readable only with granted access, or while nothing is pinned. Replaying a version folds deltas back from the author's current content, so listing versions of a pinned workflow would hand a public viewer the very edits the pin is holding back. `publish-status` carries the pinned version's date, read from the version row so the dialog and the panel print one value rather than two clocks'. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
Automated Reviewer SuggestionsBased on the
|
Contributor
|
| config | throughput | MB/s | latency | max Δ latest / 7d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🔴 | bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 | 401 | 0.245 | 24,531/29,830/29,830 us | 🟢 -9.0% / 🔴 +105.5% |
| 🔴 | bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 | 785 | 0.479 | 126,797/140,467/140,467 us | 🔴 +9.1% / 🔴 +40.6% |
| ⚪ | bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 | 903 | 0.551 | 1,103,799/1,177,335/1,177,335 us | ⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +22.7% |
Baseline details
Latest main 471e53c from same runner
| config | metric | PR | latest main | 7d avg | Δ latest | Δ 7d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 | throughput | 401 tuples/sec | 431 tuples/sec | 839.58 tuples/sec | -7.0% | -52.2% |
| bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 | MB/s | 0.245 MB/s | 0.263 MB/s | 0.512 MB/s | -6.8% | -52.2% |
| bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 | p50 | 24,531 us | 24,494 us | 11,937 us | +0.2% | +105.5% |
| bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 | p95 | 29,830 us | 32,764 us | 14,976 us | -9.0% | +99.2% |
| bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 | p99 | 29,830 us | 32,764 us | 19,204 us | -9.0% | +55.3% |
| bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 | throughput | 785 tuples/sec | 825 tuples/sec | 1,096 tuples/sec | -4.8% | -28.4% |
| bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 | MB/s | 0.479 MB/s | 0.504 MB/s | 0.669 MB/s | -5.0% | -28.4% |
| bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 | p50 | 126,797 us | 116,227 us | 94,033 us | +9.1% | +34.8% |
| bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 | p95 | 140,467 us | 145,786 us | 99,939 us | -3.6% | +40.6% |
| bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 | p99 | 140,467 us | 145,786 us | 110,148 us | -3.6% | +27.5% |
| bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 | throughput | 903 tuples/sec | 907 tuples/sec | 1,128 tuples/sec | -0.4% | -19.9% |
| bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 | MB/s | 0.551 MB/s | 0.554 MB/s | 0.688 MB/s | -0.5% | -20.0% |
| bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 | p50 | 1,103,799 us | 1,099,923 us | 921,191 us | +0.4% | +19.8% |
| bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 | p95 | 1,177,335 us | 1,171,908 us | 959,735 us | +0.5% | +22.7% |
| bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 | p99 | 1,177,335 us | 1,171,908 us | 988,604 us | +0.5% | +19.1% |
Raw CSV
config_idx,batch_size,schema_width,string_len,num_batches,total_ms,total_tuples,total_bytes,tuples_per_sec,mb_per_sec,lat_p50_us,lat_p95_us,lat_p99_us
0,10,10,64,20,499.10,200,128000,401,0.245,24531.19,29830.07,29830.07
1,100,10,64,20,2549.21,2000,1280000,785,0.479,126797.06,140466.86,140466.86
2,1000,10,64,20,22149.36,20000,12800000,903,0.551,1103799.02,1177334.66,1177334.66
This was referenced Sep 17, 2026
Draft
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #8577 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 92.91% 92.76% -0.16%
- Complexity 4884 4906 +22
============================================
Files 1224 1226 +2
Lines 51298 51619 +321
Branches 6322 6368 +46
============================================
+ Hits 47664 47884 +220
- Misses 2070 2160 +90
- Partials 1564 1575 +11
*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this PR?
Which version is the public one should be answerable, and the answer should be a row the author
can already see — the version panel is where they go to look at, and restore, an earlier version.
that row returns what was published however many edits pile up later. An existing version row
cannot stand in: one replays to the content as it was before the change it records, so it
names the wrong thing by exactly one save. Pinning again with nothing changed reuses the anchor
rather than adding a twin, and
workflow.published_version_idnames it.what the public has, but it must not start the panel's aggregation window — the save it was
pinned from is seconds older and would otherwise be folded into it and disappear.
edit, and the share dialog names the same date from the same row, so the two cannot disagree.
wrote, and both insert an anchor.
Any related issues, documentation, discussions?
Closes #7941
Part of #7828. Design discussion: #7128. Stacked on #7853, #8575 and #8576; until those merge
this PR shows their commits too, and the review here is the last one.
How was this PR tested?
8 new cases in
WorkflowPublishSpecandWorkflowVersionResourceSpec(567 in the dashboardpackage):
beside it rather than folded into it;
scalafmtCheckAllclean.Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5)
🤖 Generated with Claude Code