Conversation
skipi
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2026
## What The two rerun controls on the workflow page describe themselves in ways that invert their actual scope. The header button reads **Rerun** but starts a completely new workflow from the same commit. The button on a failed pipeline row reads **Rebuild Pipeline** but is the narrow one — it re-runs only what did not pass inside that single pipeline. Reading the labels, "Rebuild Pipeline" is the one that sounds like a full restart, so people reach for whichever button is nearest and get the scope they did not want. That is the confusion reported in #686. This renames both controls after what they rerun and makes the difference legible without a click: - Header: `Rerun` → **Rerun Workflow**, tooltip "Starts a fresh run of the whole workflow from this commit". Same on the job page header, where the tooltip also keeps the "including this job" note. - Pipeline row: `Rebuild Pipeline` → **Rerun Failed Jobs**, tooltip "Reruns only the jobs in this pipeline that did not pass, keeping the ones that did. Use Rerun Workflow above for a fresh run of everything." That row tooltip previously existed as a plain `title` attribute and did not surface in the tree. It now uses `data-tippy-content`, the mechanism the rest of the app uses: `app.js` binds those on page load, and Pollman already destroys and rebinds tooltips around each partial refresh, so the tooltip survives the tree's polling. Button sizes are unchanged — the row keeps `btn-tiny`, matching `Stop Pipeline` next to it. Follow-through so the rename does not leave stale copy behind: the tree JS in-flight label (`Rebuilding...` → `Rerunning...`) and its error-restore label, the workflow editor's rerun-granularity section (which named the button in its explanatory line), and the docs passage describing both buttons — that passage additionally claimed the header button "restarts the whole pipeline from the beginning", which is wrong; it restarts the workflow. Routes, permissions, feature gating and behaviour are untouched. The row button still renders only behind `ui_partial_ppl_rebuild`, so organizations without that feature see a single unambiguous **Rerun Workflow**. ## Scope This is a deliberate low-effort interim step: it fixes the vocabulary, not the layout. The larger piece of work — collapsing both controls into one pipeline-scoped `Rerun` menu that enumerates the pipelines with failures — is being explored separately (#1178 carries the playground it is designed in). The vocabulary picked here is the vocabulary that design lands on, so this rename is not thrown away when the menu ships. ## Verification Copy-only change; no spec asserts any of the renamed strings. The guest-path assertion in `workflow_controller_test.exs` that refutes the presence of a rerun button is unaffected — anonymous and guest viewers render `workflow/_workflow.html.eex`, which has no rerun control at all. Relying on CI for compile, format, lint and the front suites. ## Left for a follow-up `docs/docs/using-semaphore/pipelines.md` embeds `img/rerun-pipeline.jpg`, a screenshot showing the old labels. It needs to be retaken once this is deployed. The versioned CE/EE docs are intentionally not touched — released versions still ship the old labels. `Stop Pipeline`, in the same row, still has no tooltip at all. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
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
1 participant
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
A
/design-bookpage compiled only in dev and test — a playground for iterating on front UI with the app's real CSS, components and build pipeline, following the pattern of an in-app component reference book. Ships with a small library of workspace components (block cards, job rows, attempt rail, outcome and promotion cards, SVG wire drawing, dependency tiering) and one reference study rendering a canned workflow fixture served by the page's own dev-only JSON endpoint.Alongside it, a host-side dev environment so the server can run natively: a
flake.nixpinned to the exact toolchain from the Dockerfile (Elixir 1.14.5 / OTP 25.3.2.21, node 20), a headless-Chrome screenshot helper (scripts/screenshot.sh,make design.shot), anddocker-compose.host.yml— an explicit, not auto-loaded override that publishes rabbitmq/redis on 127.0.0.1 formake dev.services. The basedocker-compose.ymlis untouched, so existing docker workflows are unaffected.Not in prod, by construction
The route scope sits inside the same compile-time environment guard the router already uses elsewhere, so the routes do not exist in prod builds.
assets/build.jsonly adds thedesign_book.jsentry point when not building for prod, andmix assets.deployhardcodesMIX_ENV=prod, so the bundle cannot land in a release. The controller, view and layout compile everywhere but are unreachable without the routes.Verification
473 mocha specs (including new ones for the study registry and dependency tiering), 5 controller tests,
tsc --noEmit, eslint,mix format --check-formattedand credo all green. A prod asset build was run to confirm nodesign_book.jsis emitted whileapp.jsbuilds unchanged — byte-identicalapp.jsbefore and after this change.How to try it
🤖 Generated with Claude Code