Add an Invocations Panel for the Invocations activity - Githubissues

galaxyproject / galaxy

Data intensive science for everyone.

https://galaxyproject.org

Other

1.34k stars 969 forks source link

Add an Invocations Panel for the Invocations activity #18137

Closed ahmedhamidawan closed 4 weeks ago

ahmedhamidawan commented 1 month ago

Requires #18088

https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy/assets/78516064/b708cc10-2d2e-4095-9014-e80cfc505e9b

How to test the changes?

(Select all options that apply)

[ ] I've included appropriate automated tests.
[ ] This is a refactoring of components with existing test coverage.
[ ] Instructions for manual testing are as follows:
1. [add testing steps and prerequisites here if you didn't write automated tests covering all your changes]

License

[x] I agree to license these and all my past contributions to the core galaxy codebase under the MIT license.

mvdbeek commented 4 weeks ago

This is a step backwards in usability, can we revert that for the time being ?

mvdbeek commented 4 weeks ago

I guess it'd have been nice to have a little bit of time to review this, but maybe it is worth getting this in front of users. Could we get the full invocation list button at the top of the panel, and is it possible to keep the invocation activity we have on 24.0 as an option that people like me could continue to use ?

dannon commented 4 weeks ago

@mvdbeek We talked about this at the UI/UX meeting last week, it's not like this was rushed in -- at the time you mentioned you were concerned about the amount of real estate each invocation has in the panel, but that it'd be good to get in front of more people for more opinions. I agree.

mvdbeek commented 4 weeks ago

Screenshot 2024-05-20 at 17 39 23

mvdbeek commented 4 weeks ago

(to be fair the 1 hour is likely more than that, with rounding)

dannon commented 4 weeks ago

Thank you for the screenshot. This PR has been open over a week, and the timestamps you're showing there are showing the simple rebase on top of the parent. I don't know what point you are making.

mvdbeek commented 4 weeks ago

That it was a draft until an hour ago. There's so much going on that I don't have time to review every draft, but given I had expressed concerns earlier it would have been nice (but not a must) to have some time to review this. It's my fault of course, I could've requested changes earlier on.

dannon commented 4 weeks ago

Sure, a draft so we could discuss it like we did during the call last week, and in draft waiting on the parent PR to be merged so it could be rebased. Again, this was not rushed, there's been a week post-discussion.