Skip to content
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

Support fields filtering for map values in Workflow API responses #14305

Open
sosiska opened this issue Mar 17, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #14306
Open

Support fields filtering for map values in Workflow API responses #14305

sosiska opened this issue Mar 17, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #14306
Labels
type/feature Feature request

Comments

@sosiska
Copy link

sosiska commented Mar 17, 2025

Summary

The Fields parameter in WorkflowGetRequest allows filtering response fields like status.phase or status.startedAt. However, this filtering doesn't work properly for map structures like status.nodes.

When I specify fields like status.nodes.id or status.nodes.phase, I still get all fields for all nodes. Using the exclusion pattern with -status.nodes.templateName also doesn't work.

The current Cleaner implementation doesn't respect field filtering within map values. This results in much larger responses than necessary when retrieving workflows with many nodes.

Use Cases

  • Reducing response size for workflows with many nodes (10 000+) to avoid GRPC message size limits
  • Improving performance when only specific node fields are needed
  • Reducing network bandwidth usage for frequent workflow status checks

Current workaround is to request only status.phase,status.startedAt,status.finishedAt and skip status.nodes entirely, but this loses important node status information.


Message from the maintainers:

Love this feature request? Give it a 👍. We prioritise the proposals with the most 👍.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type/feature Feature request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant