CTM-330: ordering of set values in expression evaluation#3548
Merged
CTM-330: ordering of set values in expression evaluation#3548
Conversation
calypsomatic
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2026
calypsomatic
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2026
rjohanek
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ticket: CTM-330
When evaluating an expression against a set of entities, the result does not respect the order of entities in the set.
Imagine you have some participants:
And a participant set:
And you run a workflow against
my-setusing an expression ofthis.participants.nameinto a WDL input ofArray[String].Previously, you would have received an input that did not respect your set order:
[Bob, Dan, Carol, Alice]Now, you will have received an input that exactly matches your set:
[Alice, Bob, Carol, Dan]Note that in both cases, multiple references to the same entity are de-duplicated; "Dan" only appears once. This preserves behavior of pre-Quicksilver expression evaluation. I verified pre-Quicksilver behavior by checking out a commit before we deleted the legacy expression evaluation and adapting this PR's unit tests into that old commit.
Also note that the legacy pre-Quicksilver submissions also did not handle ordering correctly. So, this fix is technically a behavior change, though it feels correct.