feat(vscode): workflow/webview validation and E2E launcher migration (#9289) [hotfix/v5.961]

[lambrianmsft]

Byte-for-byte cherry-pick of #9289 (967b27d7) — workflow/webview validation + E2E launcher migration. Final pick in the sequential hotfix series (9294 → 9330 → 9341 → 9289).

• git cherry-pick onto the hotfix tip: 40 files, 0 graphify artifacts.
• Conflicts in the E2E infra files (vscode-e2e.yml, designerHelpers.ts, runHelpers.ts) resolved to 9289's canonical version — these files are fully owned by the E2E line (9164 → 9289) with no hotfix-unique edits, so canonical = byte-for-byte fidelity.
• package.json intentionally keeps the hotfix's uuid pin (out-of-scope base-divergence, not part of feat(vscode): Add workflow/webview validation and E2E launcher migration #9289).

Commit Type

• feature - New functionality
• fix - Bug fix
• refactor - Code restructuring without behavior change
• perf - Performance improvement
• docs - Documentation update
• test - Test-related changes
• chore - Maintenance/tooling

Risk Level

• Low - Minor changes, limited scope
• Medium - Moderate changes, some user impact
• High - Major changes, significant user/system impact

What & Why

Part 2 of 2 (depends on #9330). Adds webview validation features and E2E test infrastructure for the VS Code extension.

Key features:

• Workflow name collision detection: Block workflow names that already exist in the selected logic app project
• Reserved folder name validation: Prevent workflow names like Artifacts, lib, .vscode, workflow-designtime etc. (case-insensitive)
• Create Project folder gate: Block project creation when folder name collides with existing workspace folders
• resetState race condition fix: Remove resetState() from CreateLogicApp component that was wiping existingFolders data
• E2E behavior tests: 5 new reserved workflow name tests in createWorkspace.behavior.test.ts
• E2E infrastructure: Runtime dependency hardening in run-e2e.js, func+gozip permission repair

Impact of Change

• Users: Better validation prevents accidental overwrite of reserved/existing workflow folders during creation
• Developers: New E2E behavior test pattern for webview validation
• System: No new dependencies; validation logic is client-side only

Test Plan

• Unit tests added/updated
• E2E tests added/updated
• Manual testing completed
• Tested in: VS Code on Windows, all 18 vscode-e2e CI jobs passed including p41b-createworkspace-behavior (14m25s)

Contributors

@lambrianmsft
@copilot

Screenshots/Videos

N/A

[github-actions]

🤖 AI PR Validation Report

PR Review Results

Thank you for your submission! Here's detailed feedback on your PR title and body compliance:

✅ PR Title

• Current: feat(vscode): workflow/webview validation and E2E launcher migration (#9289) [hotfix/v5.961]
• Issue: None — the title is specific, descriptive, and includes the affected area and intent.
• Recommendation: No change needed.

---

✅ Commit Type

• Properly selected (feature).
• Only one commit type is selected, which is correct.

---

✅ Risk Level

• The submitted risk level is Medium, which is a reasonable match for the scope: workflow validation changes, webview behavior changes, E2E launcher migration, and CI workflow updates.
• Advised risk remains medium.

---

✅ What & Why

• Current: Clear and sufficiently detailed.
• Issue: None significant.
• Recommendation: Optional: mention the launcher rename more explicitly as a migration of E2E execution entrypoints if you want extra clarity.

---

⚠️ Impact of Change

• The section is present and covers users, developers, and system impact at a high level.
• Recommendation:
  • Users: Consider adding that workflow creation is now blocked for reserved/existing names.
  • Developers: Mention the new availableProjects / existingFolders state additions if you want stronger implementation context.
  • System: Add that CI now includes an extra compatibility job, which increases runtime slightly.

---

✅ Test Plan

• Unit tests and E2E tests are both present in the diff, which satisfies the test-plan requirements.
• No issue found with the checked test plan items.

---

✅ Contributors

• Present and acceptable.
• Optional only: if any PM/design input contributed, consider adding them for credit.

---

✅ Screenshots/Videos

• Marked N/A, which is acceptable for this change set.

---

Summary Table

Section	Status	Recommendation
Title	✅	No change needed
Commit Type	✅	Only one type selected, correct
Risk Level	✅	Medium is appropriate
What & Why	✅	Clear enough as written
Impact of Change	⚠️	Add more concrete user/dev/system impact if desired
Test Plan	✅	Unit + E2E tests present in diff
Contributors	✅	Acceptable as-is
Screenshots/Videos	✅	N/A is fine

---

This PR passes review for title/body compliance. The advised risk level remains medium, matching the submitter's estimate.

---

Last updated: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 02:38:23 GMT