-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Peter,

Please bear with me, I'm mostly tossing these ideas out for my
benefit/to spawn discussion on how one might implement this. This was
originally a short email before I figured out how much work would be
involved...

Upon cursory inspection I see that workflows are stored as lines in the
database. Were it to be easily stored in a VCS, all database workflow
steps would probably have to be migrated to disk. In the toolsheds
workflows are stored as JSON, so it'd just be a matter of dumping
existing internal workflows to disk.

On disk it would be stored in a "workflow" folder, with a set of
numbered sub-folders. Each subfolder would store a VCS repo. These
numbered sub-folders would be referenced in the database.
Additionally, there would be a "cache" folder in the workflow folder, to
store the current/active version of the workflow, per workflow, per user.

Continuing just to toss ideas out, I could see implementing this in a
VCS while hiding as much of that as possible away from the user. How
about this:

- - Sharing creates a tag in the vcs (your permanent, immutable version)
- - If it was shared to them with edit capabilities, a branch is created
to allow them to make their changes and eventually merge back.
- - Upon save, we'd ask them if they'd like to add a short message
describing their changes (by default it'd read "{UserRealName} made
modifications" or something like that so they could just click through
if they didn't want to write a message)
- - In the edit view, there'd be an additional button which reads "Merge
these changes back into {Sharer'sRealName}'s copy of this workflow"
which would execute a merge (I guess it could create a merge request but
that seems like a bit much)
- - In the workflow list we would now have an area to select previous
revisions of workflows and open those up in the edit window.
- - selecting a previous version of the workflow would set the user's
active workflow (somewhere in DB) to that revision.

Keeping track of which workflow was "active" might be a bit difficult...
I would imagine it would work like so:

- - workflows are separated from users.
- - the DB table of "stored_workflow" would be modified to store which
repository (in the workflow/NNN/ folder), as well as the current head
- - a table would be created, mapping users to specific revisions of a
workflow. (workflow_user_revision) [user_id,workflow_id,revision]
    - maybe revision would be either revision hash or "HEAD" to say they
always want the latest version?
- - sharing a workflow (read/write) would add a new row in the
workflow_user_revision, with an updated user_id, and a copy of the that
user's current revision hash (because that user would be sharing that
specific version).
- - sharing a workflow (read only) would do pretty much the same.


This made sense in my mind at least...does this seem like a reasonable
way to implement this? Do you (or anyone else) have comments to make on
this proposal?

(Mind you, this is just me thinking out loud for the time being...I have
a lot of other galaxy modifications to get through first for my
organisation (native LDAP integration, script ACLs))





On 10/30/2013 05:11 PM, Peter Cock wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> I've being pondering this too - it can easily get very complicated
> with multiple copies of a workflow with minor variations.
> 
> I agree that "read only" sharing makes sense as a short term
> goal, but I see two variants being useful here - an read only
> snapshot copy from the instant it was shared (where the shared
> version is locked forever but may of course optionally be
> copied by the receiver, and the copy edited), and as an
> always up to date live pointer (in case the original owner
> revises it - then all the users get the changes immediately).
> 
> Some of your wish list  ideas also sound very good, but may
> not be practical - not everyone will understand a VCS
> approach to managing workflows :(
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Eric Rasche <rasche.e...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> I'm working with a number of people in my department to develop a single
> workflow that will be used for a course we teach. So far I've found that
> "sharing" a workflow with individual users/roles isn't very optimal.
> They email me with changes they'd like to happen, or they create their
> own copies which immediately branch off and don't help everyone else who
> might need them.
> 
> As such, I'd like to propose changes and would like community feedback
> on my proposed changes so when I create the trello card/maybe try my
> hand at implementing them, they aren't completely specific to my use case.
> 
> In my mind, the 'optimal' version of managing workflows would be
> something along the following lines:
> 
> Top priorities:
> 
> - workflows can be shared as "write" or "read only" with multiple
> users/roles.
>         - This would allow there to be a single copy of a workflow in cases
> where multiple people might make changes to a single workflow
>         - For "read only", this allows the previous/traditional model of
> sharing a workflow and the receiver being able to run it as is, or to
> copy and modify it.
> 
> Note:
> 
> For my case at least, realtime multiple person editing is not needed. If
> a banner shows up which reads "someone started editing before you,
> either ask them to save + leave or save as a copy" would work in my case.
> 
> Wishlist features:
> 
> - workflows are treated as VCS repositories
>         - Note that full merge/branching probably not really necessary for 
> this
> case (that would be really nice, but probably too much of a nightmare to
> code...)
> - You can see previous iterations of workflows.
> - Workflows can be "owned" by either a user or a role
>         - users could create a workflow and transfer ownership to a role
>         - role owned workflows are delete-able (or maybe require some X% of
> users in that role to confirmation deletion?)
>         - This would sort of work like a group owned VCS repository, where
> multiple users can create workflows of interest to a group of people
> (role) and have them, by default, be available.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone have input on this proposal?
> 
> Cheers,
> Eric
> 
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
>> in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
>> and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
>>   http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
>>
>> To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:
>>   http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/

Cheers,
Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=OAgc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
___________________________________________________________
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
  http://lists.bx.psu.edu/

To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:
  http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/

Reply via email to