fix: pass workflow inputs to success and failure actions by harshit078 · Pull Request #2796 · Redocly/redocly-cli

harshit078 · 2026-05-04T10:55:54Z

What/Why/How?

Added the spec-parameters-in-by-context Arazzo rule
Added parameters property in interface of workflow for success and failure action objects.

Reference

#2735

Testing

Screenshots (optional)

Check yourself

This PR follows the contributing guide
All new/updated code is covered by tests
Core code changed? - Tested with other Redocly products (internal contributions only)
New package installed? - Tested in different environments (browser/node)
Documentation update has been considered

Security

The security impact of the change has been considered
Code follows company security practices and guidelines

Note

Medium Risk
Changes Arazzo validation defaults and Respect workflow execution when branching via actions; existing Arazzo files with invalid parameter usage may newly fail lint or behave differently at runtime.

Overview
Adds Arazzo 1.1 support for parameters on success and failure actions, wired through Respect so those values become inputs on the target workflow when a goto action references a workflowId.

Introduces the spec-parameters-in-by-context lint rule (documented and registered in preset configs): inline parameters must include in on workflows and on steps that do not use workflowId; action parameters are only allowed when the action has a workflowId, and action parameters use a dedicated schema/type without in (enforced by struct). parameters-unique now also applies to action parameter lists.

E2E lint for a sample Arazzo file now fails when onFailure defines parameters without workflowId.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 3192f86. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

changeset-bot · 2026-05-04T10:55:59Z

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 3192f86

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 3 packages

Name	Type
@redocly/openapi-core	Minor
@redocly/cli	Minor
@redocly/respect-core	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

AlbinaBlazhko17 · 2026-05-12T08:47:55Z

Thanks @harshit078 for contribution! Please, fix the issue reported by bugbot. I left comment as well. Additionally, please add docs for a new rule.

harshit078 · 2026-05-18T10:04:31Z

Hey @AlbinaBlazhko17 , I have pushed a fix addressing both cursor and your comment along with addition of docs for spec-parameters-in-by-context hence made changes in v2 docs.

AlbinaBlazhko17 · 2026-05-20T06:55:38Z

+
+export const SpecParametersInByContext: Arazzo1Rule = () => {
+  return {
+    Step: {


Please, add to this rule Workflowvisitor, because you miss, that Workflow also accepts parameters per arazzo.ts:179.

harshit078 · 2026-05-29T16:06:19Z

Hi @AlbinaBlazhko17 , I have tried doing both the commands and pushed the commit for it but the tests still fails. Is there something I might be doing wrong ?

AlbinaBlazhko17 · 2026-06-02T16:31:30Z

Hi @harshit078! You fixed first batch of errors. Let's fix the second:

To fix build-and-unit run command npm run e2e -- -u to update two snapshots.
The code-style-check failed due to an error (listed below), you need to use isPlainObject.

  × oxlint-redocly-plugin(no-typeof-object): Avoid `typeof ... 'object'` comparison. Use `isPlainObject` helper instead.
   ╭─[packages/core/src/rules/arazzo/spec-parameters-in-by-context.ts:6:32]
 5 │ function isInlineParameter(parameter: Parameter): boolean {
 6 │   return Boolean(parameter) && typeof parameter === 'object' && !('reference' in parameter);
   ·                                ─────────────────────────────
 7 │ }
   ╰────

harshit078 · 2026-06-02T17:50:39Z

Hey @AlbinaBlazhko17 , thank you for helping me out. The PR is good to go on the check side.

DmitryAnansky · 2026-06-03T13:50:24Z

+
+## Design principles
+
+The Arazzo specification states that when a step, success action, or failure action specifies a `workflowId`, all parameters map to the referenced workflow's inputs and the `in` field MUST NOT be specified.


@harshit078
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this statement seems to be inaccurate.
The Arazzo specification only mentions this for Success Action Object and Failure Action Object but not for the step.

A list of parameters that MUST be passed to a workflow as referenced by workflowId. If a Reusable Object is provided, it MUST link to a parameter defined in the [components/parameters](https://spec.openapis.org/arazzo/latest.html#components-object) of the current Arazzo document. The list MUST NOT include duplicate parameters. The `in` field MUST NOT be used.

https://spec.openapis.org/arazzo/latest.html#success-action-object

https://spec.openapis.org/arazzo/latest.html#failure-action-object

I’d also like to clarify whether step-level parameters that don’t include an in field should be merged into the success and failure action objects.
Here is my question for the community => https://open-api.slack.com/archives/C022K8VD7AP/p1780496931264819

I think I got confused on my end a bit but I agree, I assumed that step was included along with success and failure. I read the docs but couldnt open the slack archive as account was not there in that community and I have made changes to only keep to success and failure and revamped my verbiage in arrazo rules and also spec-parmaters context.ts

Here is my question to the community, in case you were not able to join =>

Hi All, I have a question regarding the recent parameter updates in Arazzo 1.1. Could you please clarify this behavior for me? Should step level parameters without in be merged into Success/Failure Action Objects? workflows: - workflowId: someWorkflow steps: - stepId: someStep operationId: create parameters: - name: sort in: query value: '-name' - name: endDate value: '2026-08-08' onSuccess: - name: successFlow workflowId: successActionWorkflowId type: goto parameters: - name: startDate value: '2026-01-01' Will the successActionWorkflowId workflow have two input parameters (startDate and endDate), or only one (startDate) ? Thank you.

I will add more details here after the reply.

@harshit078
Here is the replay from the community, please review and apply to your PR:

No, this should be a deliberate and selective process. When defining the parameters within a Success/Failure action that references a workflow, you are deliberately specifying what should be mapped into the workflow inputs based on the referenced workflowId . While these could overlap with some or all of the parameters at the step level, there is no expectation that an implicit merge of parameters should happen.

DmitryAnansky · 2026-06-03T14:24:28Z

+        operationId: createTicket
+        onSuccess:
+          - name: end-with-params
+            type: end


It seems like parameters also won't make sense when action type is end.
What do you think?

yes I agree, I'll remove it. it is redundant to have it.

DmitryAnansky · 2026-06-04T14:59:03Z

+      ...basicCTX,
+      $workflows: {
+        'get-bird-workflow': { steps: {}, inputs: {} },
+        'success-action-workflow': { steps: {}, inputs: {} },


I will clarify this with the Arazzo community, but in my opinion, only inputs defined by the workflow JSON Schema should be passed to the workflow.
In practice, this would mean that when parameters without in are passed to a workflow, only those defined in workflow.inputs JSON schema would be available in the workflow runtime context through $inputs.

Currently all of inputs are passed, and this was the behavior before changes in this PR.

Ok, lets wait till then !

Hey @DmitryAnansky , any update ?

@harshit078,
No response yet, still waiting.

Hi @DmitryAnansky , any update from the community ?

Hey @DmitryAnansky , any update so far ?

Yes, we got the replay:

...the expectation is that all step parameters will be passed to the workflow and thus MUST be mappable to the workflow inputs JSON Schema.

github-actions · 2026-07-29T11:10:09Z

Performance Benchmark (Lower is Faster)

CLI Version	Bundle	Lint	Check Config
cli-latest	▓ 1.02x ± 0.02	▓ 1.00x ± 0.01	▓ 1.00x (Fastest)
cli-next	▓ 1.00x (Fastest)	▓ 1.00x (Fastest)	▓ 1.01x ± 0.01

cursor

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes using default effort and found 2 potential issues.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 3192f86. Configure here.}

cursor · 2026-07-29T11:10:11Z


-Woohoo! Your API description is valid. 🎉
+❌ Validation failed with 1 error.
+run `redocly lint --generate-ignore-file` to add all problems to the ignore file.


Valid e2e fixture now fails lint

Medium Severity

The Arazzo 1.1 “valid description” fixture still defines parameters on a retry failure action without a workflowId. The new rule correctly flags that, but the snapshot was updated to expect failure instead of fixing the example, so the valid-description e2e no longer represents a valid document.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 3192f86. Configure here.}

cursor · 2026-07-29T11:10:11Z

  arazzo1_1Rules: {
    'criteria-unique': 'off',
    'no-criteria-xpath': 'off',
+    'spec-parameters-in-by-context': 'error',


Wrong minimal rule severity for 1.1

Medium Severity

In the minimal preset, spec-parameters-in-by-context is off for Arazzo 1.0 but error for Arazzo 1.1. Minimal configs are meant to stay lenient, and the rule docs advertise a default of off, so enabling it as error only under arazzo1_1Rules looks unintentional.

Additional Locations (1)

packages/core/src/config/minimal.ts#L280-L281

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 3192f86. Configure here.}

feat: add parameters field to Success and Failure in arrazo

5649bbd

harshit078 and others added 4 commits May 7, 2026 16:33

Merge branch 'main' into pass-workflow-input-to-actions

7646ee8

feat: added spec parameters for arrazo rules in config

c46b071

feat: added specs parameters logic and test with changeset

613e9a3

Merge branch 'main' into pass-workflow-input-to-actions

6b7e963

harshit078 marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2026 10:20

harshit078 requested review from a team as code owners May 8, 2026 10:20

cursor Bot reviewed May 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/core/src/rules/arazzo/spec-parameters-in-by-context.ts Outdated

AlbinaBlazhko17 reviewed May 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/core/src/rules/arazzo/spec-parameters-in-by-context.ts Outdated

harshit078 and others added 5 commits May 18, 2026 14:02

Merge branch 'main' into pass-workflow-input-to-actions

a41e2aa

fix: address comments and added docs

e057bd1

Merge branch 'main' into pass-workflow-input-to-actions

f218352

fix: failing markdownlint failing test

28c0ac1

fix: markdownlint failing test

c3223dc

harshit078 requested a review from AlbinaBlazhko17 May 18, 2026 10:04

AlbinaBlazhko17 reviewed May 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .changeset/swift-otters-wander.md Outdated

AlbinaBlazhko17 reviewed May 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/core/src/rules/arazzo/spec-parameters-in-by-context.ts Outdated

AlbinaBlazhko17 reviewed May 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/@v2/rules/arazzo/spec-parameters-in-by-context.md Outdated

AlbinaBlazhko17 reviewed May 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/@v2/rules/arazzo/spec-parameters-in-by-context.md Outdated

harshit078 and others added 4 commits May 20, 2026 15:15

fix: address comments and updated changset and used paramters interface

f3ffcdd

fix: added spec parameter test

db9eb6b

fix: minor lint fix

83a27cb

Merge branch 'main' into pass-workflow-input-to-actions

ffd8f5a

harshit078 requested a review from AlbinaBlazhko17 May 20, 2026 10:14

AlbinaBlazhko17 reviewed May 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/core/src/types/arazzo.ts Outdated

fix: failing build test

b12d4c7

harshit078 requested a review from AlbinaBlazhko17 May 29, 2026 16:06

harshit078 added 2 commits June 2, 2026 22:50

fix: failing lint test

a58b507

fix: failing lint test

41b8546

DmitryAnansky reviewed Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .changeset/swift-otters-wander.md Outdated

DmitryAnansky reviewed Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/@v2/rules/arazzo/spec-parameters-in-by-context.md Outdated

DmitryAnansky reviewed Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/respect-core/src/arazzo-schema.ts Outdated

fix: remove x-allowedReserved from actionParameter

ce4f733

cursor Bot reviewed Jun 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/respect-core/src/modules/flow-runner/run-step.ts

fix: updated changesets

a14a54b

cursor Bot reviewed Jun 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/respect-core/src/modules/flow-runner/run-step.ts

harshit078 and others added 2 commits June 4, 2026 16:23

fix: updated validation for in field in parameters

a1443a6

Merge branch 'main' into pass-workflow-input-to-actions

e1820da

cursor Bot reviewed Jun 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/core/src/rules/arazzo/spec-parameters-in-by-context.ts

harshit078 added 2 commits June 4, 2026 16:27

fix: updated tests for in field now

64f339e

fix: failing e2e tests and added snapshots

ae9e4c7

harshit078 requested a review from DmitryAnansky June 4, 2026 11:37

DmitryAnansky reviewed Jun 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

harshit078 and others added 3 commits July 28, 2026 16:56

Merge branch 'main' into pass-workflow-input-to-actions

1d8c049

fix: failing tests

173d11c

Merge branch 'main' into pass-workflow-input-to-actions

88e9738

cursor Bot reviewed Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/respect-core/src/modules/flow-runner/run-step.ts

fix: address failing tests and duplicate code

3192f86

cursor Bot reviewed Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes


		## Design principles

		The Arazzo specification states that when a step, success action, or failure action specifies a `workflowId`, all parameters map to the referenced workflow's inputs and the `in` field MUST NOT be specified.

Uh oh!

Conversation

harshit078 commented May 4, 2026 • edited by cursor Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What/Why/How?

Reference

Testing

Screenshots (optional)

Check yourself

Security

Uh oh!

changeset-bot Bot commented May 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🦋 Changeset detected

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AlbinaBlazhko17 commented May 12, 2026

Uh oh!

harshit078 commented May 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

harshit078 commented May 29, 2026

Uh oh!

AlbinaBlazhko17 commented Jun 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

harshit078 commented Jun 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DmitryAnansky Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 29, 2026

Performance Benchmark (Lower is Faster)

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

harshit078 commented May 4, 2026 •

edited by cursor Bot

Loading

changeset-bot Bot commented May 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

AlbinaBlazhko17 commented Jun 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

DmitryAnansky Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading