One problem we noticed in the morning is that the breaking change of the

garden run workflow

command (now

run-workflow

) can be quite confusing. E.g. with the following config,

run workflow

fails with a very cryptic error message, and

run-workflow

succeeds:

kind: Project
name: repro
environments:
 - name: default
providers:
 - name: exec
   initScript: exit 1

---

kind: Workflow
name: test
steps:
  - script: echo FOO
    name: setup

here's the related GH issue https://github.com/garden-io/garden/issues/4166

Also wrote in the self-empathy doc about it as it cost me a couple of hours to figure out together with anna and veeti: https://www.notion.so/gardendev/Self-Empathy-Session-0-13-8641930898f345019ab1cc63dcb930aa?pvs=4#9f4163c7337345dab4999c55149a19f7

we have a specific check and warning in case users are trying to do

garden run workflow

in bonsai, here at https://github.com/garden-io/garden/blob/f99db5321ce1eb0927b13b918b50c3a8f4aa0398/core/src/commands/run.ts#L211-L223 but the issue is that the check for it is below the getConfigGraph call here, which initializes providers https://github.com/garden-io/garden/blob/f99db5321ce1eb0927b13b918b50c3a8f4aa0398/core/src/commands/run.ts#L113

I personally have to say that I dislike that most commands work with a space between words, and this command is with a dash. IMO this is a foot gun!

the big issue here is that in bonsai, we have a completely new action type which is also called

run

, and in bonsai,

garden run

is intended for those so there's a new, separate command

run-workflow

for those

I know, still a foot gun 🙂 we need to find a solution for this IMO

yep, agreed! just spelling out the reason why it is like it is

We could even disallow naming Runs "workflow" and continue using the "run workflow" command

I've been thinking that maybe we should call it

garden workflow

rather than

garden run-workflow

. Feels more consistent with the new CLI in general.

I think we need to-to some degree at least-accept that this is a footgun and just make sure we're super clear in messages. We can't just stick endlessly with past design choices as we iterate 😛 So yeah, I think we should just fix the warning in the new run command to start.

👍 i'll move the check earlier in the code (above the graph init) and do the rename in the same pr