cuddly-jelly-27016
05/29/2025, 12:10 AMwith_overrides -- we realized this was not an ideal UX/UI because it would mean these views would then be displaying the nodeId rather than human-readable function names (eg, n0-0-n2-0-n0-0-n1 vs hello_person). This is because while parsing the compiledWorkflowClosure we must choose to display based off either the nodeId or the metadata.name and a node will always have a nodeId so we can't do a conditional.
Example: the user was requesting to display the nodeId 'hello-bob' here instead of the function name 'hello_person' from metadata.name but we see in the second example that this is actually less useful in most cases.
"id": "hello-bob",
"metadata": {
"name": "hello_person",
"retries": {}
}
"id": "n0",
"metadata": {
"name": "people",
"retries": {}
},
As a solution we want to update with_overrides to update both the nodeId and the metadata.name field -- this better matches the user intention of with_overrides and in those cases display the overridden name while also preserving the better UX for most/standard executions.
### Goal: What should the final outcome look like, ideally?
When a user defines an entity in flytekit and uses with_overrides, it will update both the nodeId and metadata.name for that execution.
### Describe alternatives you've considered
NA
### Propose: Link/Inline OR Additional context
#3370
flyteorg/flytekit#1344
### Are you sure this issue hasn't been raised already?
• Yes
### Have you read the Code of Conduct?
• Yes
flyteorg/flytecuddly-jelly-27016
05/29/2025, 12:10 AM