feat(vscode): workflow/webview validation and E2E launcher migration (#9289) [hotfix/v5.970]

[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/v5.970]
• Issue: None blocking. The title is specific and describes the main scope well.
• Recommendation: No change needed.

---

✅ Commit Type

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

---

⚠️ Risk Level

• The submitter selected Medium, which is plausible, but the diff is broad and touches core validation flows, E2E launcher infrastructure, and multiple app surfaces.
• Advised risk level: High
• Recommendation: Update the PR body risk section to High if this change is intended to land as-is.

---

✅ What & Why

• Current: Clear and sufficiently detailed.
• Issue: None blocking.
• Recommendation: No change needed.

---

✅ Impact of Change

• Impact is described clearly enough for review.
• Recommendation:
  • Users: No update needed.
  • Developers: No update needed.
  • System: No update needed.

---

✅ Test Plan

• The diff includes both unit tests and E2E tests, so the test plan passes.
• Note: The body says Manual testing completed is unchecked, which is fine because automated tests are present.

---

✅ Contributors

• Present and acceptable.
• No action required.

---

✅ Screenshots/Videos

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

---

Summary Table

Section	Status	Recommendation
Title	✅
Commit Type	✅
Risk Level	⚠️	Consider updating to High to match the scope of the diff.
What & Why	✅
Impact of Change	✅
Test Plan	✅
Contributors	✅
Screenshots/Videos	✅

---

Overall, the PR passes review, but I advise raising the risk level from Medium to High to better reflect the breadth of validation, E2E infrastructure, and workflow behavior changes.

---

Last updated: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 02:31:09 GMT