Skip to content

feature: Batch re-run UI #4787

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

Closed
rubenfiszel opened this issue Nov 25, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #5553
Closed

feature: Batch re-run UI #4787

rubenfiszel opened this issue Nov 25, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #5553

Comments

@rubenfiszel
Copy link
Contributor

The goal of this feature is to allow to run more than 1 jobs at once from the UI

Scenarios that need to be handled:

  • Filtering jobs from the runs page, selecting them (all within page, all within filters, or one by one) and re-running all of them (v0)
  • Take a time window range within a schedule that is in the past and run all ticks that would have happened in the past, with optionally not re-running the ticks that did actually happen

In terms of job arguments, here are the different scenarios:

  • Rerun with exactly same args as the re-ran job (v0)
  • If having selected different script versions or flow versions, which have different schemas:
    • Have a tab for each script/flow version containing a schema form
    • Have a "common tab" where fields that are common can be set there
    • every field can either be set with static info or a javascript expression like for scripts/flows, where possible values usable in that javascript expressions are the date at which the job was originally schedules or the value of other fields
@zach-wire3
Copy link

I would like to add another suggestion: the ability to re-run failed jobs only and having the failure status change for that specific run.

Perhaps this can be an option in the flow settings to permit runs to change from failed to success on a re-run? This is a nice-to-have to make the dot chart look all green when bugs in flows are fixed.

@rubenfiszel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, we might go this path but only if we can actually append all the necessary information instead of overwriting so that traceability and history is clear.

@diegoimbert diegoimbert linked a pull request Apr 2, 2025 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants