You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When multiple launch plan is bound to the same workflow, it's unclear which workflow execution correspond with which launch plan. In order to figure that out, users typically have to open the execution details and check the execution inputs. This user experience is not ideal.
As can be seen below, multiple executions started on 3/25/2023 5:00:12 AM UTC but it's lacking information about the launch plan/schedule which trigger the execution.
Goal: What should the final outcome look like, ideally?
Users should be able to easily identify which launch plan is used when executing a workflow, either by adding a column that identifies the launch plan or the ability to filter execution by launch plan or both.
Propose: Link/Inline OR Additional context
Ability to filter execution using the launch plan name in the workflow page
Display the launch plan name as a column in the execution list
Are you sure this issue hasn't been raised already?
Yes
Have you read the Code of Conduct?
Yes
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Motivation: Why do you think this is important?
When multiple launch plan is bound to the same workflow, it's unclear which workflow execution correspond with which launch plan. In order to figure that out, users typically have to open the execution details and check the execution inputs. This user experience is not ideal.
As can be seen below, multiple executions started on 3/25/2023 5:00:12 AM UTC but it's lacking information about the launch plan/schedule which trigger the execution.
Goal: What should the final outcome look like, ideally?
Users should be able to easily identify which launch plan is used when executing a workflow, either by adding a column that identifies the launch plan or the ability to filter execution by launch plan or both.
Propose: Link/Inline OR Additional context
Are you sure this issue hasn't been raised already?
Have you read the Code of Conduct?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: