feat(DATAGO-117907): Show created artifacts in the workflow diagram #607

RZuchniak · 2025-12-02T16:42:37Z

Changes

Modified save_artifact_with_metadata() to emit artifact_creation_progress signals with function_call_id field linking artifacts to their creating tool calls
LLM generated artifacts: Backend emits artifact creation signal before the notify_artifact_save tool call is sent over.
Frontend handler distinguishes normal tool call signals from the LLM generated creation signals by ID prefix and queues LLM generated artifacts until tool result arrives
Added workflow diagram logic to create artifact nodes linked to parent tools via function_call_id lookup
Created new GenericArtifactNode React component for artifact visualization
Removed redundant _notify_artifact_save handler in ChatProvider (handled by new artifact_creation_progress handler)

Considerations

Current implementation assumes that a tool call can only create 1 artifact. Frontend can be updated to support multiple
LLM generated artifacts no longer rely on the _notify_artifact_save tool call for completion status and metadata

github-actions · 2025-12-02T16:45:16Z

WhiteSource Policy Violation Summary

✅︎ No Blocking Whitesource Policy Violations found in solaceai/solace-agent-mesh-ui-pr-607!

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR implements workflow diagram visualization for created artifacts by establishing a link between artifacts and their creating tool calls through the function_call_id field. The implementation handles both regular tool-created artifacts and LLM-generated artifacts (fenced blocks) with different timing patterns.

Key changes:

Backend emits artifact_creation_progress signals with function_call_id linking artifacts to tool calls
Frontend distinguishes between synthetic tool calls (LLM-generated) and regular tool calls, queuing the former until tool results arrive
New GenericArtifactNode component displays artifacts in the workflow diagram, connected to parent tool nodes

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 14 out of 15 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`src/solace_agent_mesh/common/data_parts.py`	Added `function_call_id` field to `ArtifactCreationProgressData` for linking artifacts to tools
`src/solace_agent_mesh/agent/utils/artifact_helpers.py`	Modified `save_artifact_with_metadata()` to emit artifact creation signals with `function_call_id` and added `suppress_visualization_signal` parameter
`src/solace_agent_mesh/agent/tools/builtin_artifact_tools.py`	Suppressed visualization signals in fenced blocks since callbacks handle them
`src/solace_agent_mesh/agent/adk/callbacks.py`	Updated to emit artifact signals with `function_call_id` after generating the synthetic tool call ID
`tests/unit/agent/utils/test_artifact_workflow_signals.py`	Added comprehensive unit tests for signal emission, suppression flag, and missing context handling
`client/webui/frontend/src/lib/providers/ChatProvider.tsx`	Removed redundant `_notify_artifact_save` handler as completion is now handled by new signal
`client/webui/frontend/src/lib/providers/TaskProvider.tsx`	Code formatting improvements
`client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/taskVisualizerProcessor.ts`	Added logic to queue LLM-generated artifacts and create visualization steps for both artifact types
`client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/VisualizerStepCard.tsx`	Enhanced artifact notification display with "View File" button
`client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/FlowChartPanel.tsx`	Registered `ArtifactNode` component and added click handling for artifact nodes
`client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/FlowChart/taskToFlowData.ts`	Implemented `handleArtifactNotification()` to create artifact nodes linked to parent tools
`client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/FlowChart/customNodes/GenericToolNode.tsx`	Added right-side output handle for artifact connections
`client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/FlowChart/customNodes/GenericArtifactNode.tsx`	Created new artifact node component with purple styling
`src/solace_agent_mesh/gateway/http_sse/routers/visualization.py`	Removed trailing comma formatting
`src/solace_agent_mesh/common/sam_events/event_service.py`	Code formatting cleanup

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/FlowChart/taskToFlowData.ts:485

This use of variable 'sourceToolNode' always evaluates to true.

    if (sourceToolNode) {

Copilot · 2025-12-02T16:53:42Z

src/solace_agent_mesh/agent/adk/callbacks.py

+                            # Don't send completion signal here - it will be sent later
+                            # when we inject the _notify_artifact_save tool call
+                            # This ensures the signal and tool call arrive together with matching IDs


[nitpick] The comment at lines 346-348 could be more precise about the timing relationship. Consider clarifying the sequence:

# Don't send completion signal here - it will be sent later # when we inject the _notify_artifact_save tool call and have # generated the function_call_id for proper workflow linking

This makes it clearer why we're deferring the signal emission (to ensure we have the function_call_id).

Suggested change

# Don't send completion signal here - it will be sent later

# when we inject the _notify_artifact_save tool call

# This ensures the signal and tool call arrive together with matching IDs

# Don't send completion signal here – it will be sent later,

# after we inject the _notify_artifact_save tool call and have

# generated the function_call_id for proper workflow linking.

Copilot · 2025-12-02T16:53:42Z

client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/FlowChart/taskToFlowData.ts

+    if (sourceToolNode) {
+        const ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET = 300; // Horizontal distance from tool to artifact
+
+        if (subflow) {
+            const toolNode = nodes.find(n => n.id === sourceToolNode.id);
+            if (toolNode) {
+                artifactX = toolNode.position.x + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET;
+                artifactY = toolNode.position.y;
+            } else {
+                artifactX = (sourceToolNode.xPosition ?? LANE_X_POSITIONS.TOOLS) + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET;
+                artifactY = sourceToolNode.yPosition ?? manager.nextAvailableGlobalY;
+            }
+        } else {
+            artifactX = (sourceToolNode.xPosition ?? LANE_X_POSITIONS.TOOLS) + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET;
+            artifactY = sourceToolNode.yPosition ?? manager.nextAvailableGlobalY;
+        }
+    } else return; // Cannot create artifact node without a source tool


The logic at line 485-501 has redundant checks. The code checks if (sourceToolNode) at line 485, performs calculations, then checks else return at line 501, which is unreachable. This is because the same condition was already checked at line 473-476 with an early return if sourceToolNode is falsy.

Consider removing the redundant checks to simplify the code:

if (sourceToolNode) { const ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET = 300; // Horizontal distance from tool to artifact if (subflow) { const toolNode = nodes.find(n => n.id === sourceToolNode.id); if (toolNode) { artifactX = toolNode.position.x + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET; artifactY = toolNode.position.y; } else { artifactX = (sourceToolNode.xPosition ?? LANE_X_POSITIONS.TOOLS) + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET; artifactY = sourceToolNode.yPosition ?? manager.nextAvailableGlobalY; } } else { artifactX = (sourceToolNode.xPosition ?? LANE_X_POSITIONS.TOOLS) + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET; artifactY = sourceToolNode.yPosition ?? manager.nextAvailableGlobalY; } }

Suggested change

if (sourceToolNode) {

const ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET = 300; // Horizontal distance from tool to artifact

if (subflow) {

const toolNode = nodes.find(n => n.id === sourceToolNode.id);

if (toolNode) {

artifactX = toolNode.position.x + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET;

artifactY = toolNode.position.y;

} else {

artifactX = (sourceToolNode.xPosition ?? LANE_X_POSITIONS.TOOLS) + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET;

artifactY = sourceToolNode.yPosition ?? manager.nextAvailableGlobalY;

}

} else {

artifactX = (sourceToolNode.xPosition ?? LANE_X_POSITIONS.TOOLS) + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET;

artifactY = sourceToolNode.yPosition ?? manager.nextAvailableGlobalY;

}

} else return; // Cannot create artifact node without a source tool

const ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET = 300; // Horizontal distance from tool to artifact

if (subflow) {

const toolNode = nodes.find(n => n.id === sourceToolNode.id);

if (toolNode) {

artifactX = toolNode.position.x + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET;

artifactY = toolNode.position.y;

} else {

artifactX = (sourceToolNode.xPosition ?? LANE_X_POSITIONS.TOOLS) + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET;

artifactY = sourceToolNode.yPosition ?? manager.nextAvailableGlobalY;

}

} else {

artifactX = (sourceToolNode.xPosition ?? LANE_X_POSITIONS.TOOLS) + ARTIFACT_X_OFFSET;

artifactY = sourceToolNode.yPosition ?? manager.nextAvailableGlobalY;

}

Copilot · 2025-12-02T16:53:43Z

client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/FlowChart/taskToFlowData.ts

+        type: "artifactNode",
+        position: { x: artifactX, y: artifactY },
+        data: {
+            label: "Artifact",


The artifact node creation uses a generic "Artifact" label instead of including the actual artifact name. This makes it difficult to distinguish between multiple artifacts in the workflow diagram.

Consider updating the label to include the artifact name:

data: { label: artifactName, visualizerStepId: step.id, },

This would make the diagram more informative and easier to understand.

Suggested change

label: "Artifact",

label: artifactName,

Copilot · 2025-12-02T16:53:43Z

client/webui/frontend/src/lib/components/activities/FlowChart/taskToFlowData.ts

+
+    // Update maxY and maxContentXRelative to ensure group accommodates the artifact
+    const artifactBottom = artifactY + NODE_HEIGHT;
+    const artifactRight = artifactX + NODE_WIDTH / 2;


The calculation artifactRight = artifactX + NODE_WIDTH / 2 appears incorrect. When calculating the rightmost extent of the artifact node for group sizing, it should be artifactX + NODE_WIDTH (the full width), not half the width. Using half the width will result in insufficient space allocation for the artifact node within the group.

Consider changing line 529 to:

const artifactRight = artifactX + NODE_WIDTH;

Suggested change

const artifactRight = artifactX + NODE_WIDTH / 2;

const artifactRight = artifactX + NODE_WIDTH;

Copilot · 2025-12-02T16:53:43Z

src/solace_agent_mesh/common/data_parts.py

        description="The version number of the artifact being created or updated.",
    )
+    function_call_id: Optional[str] = Field(
+        None, description="The function call ID if artifact was created by a tool."


[nitpick] The description for the new function_call_id field could be more specific about its purpose in the workflow visualization. Consider updating the description to clarify when and why this field is populated:

function_call_id: Optional[str] = Field( None, description="The function call ID linking this artifact to the tool call that created it, used for workflow diagram visualization." )

This makes it clearer that the field serves a specific visualization purpose.

Suggested change

None, description="The function call ID if artifact was created by a tool."

None,

description="The function call ID linking this artifact to the tool call that created it, used for workflow diagram visualization. Populated only when the artifact is created by a tool call."

Copilot · 2025-12-02T16:53:44Z

tests/unit/agent/utils/test_artifact_workflow_signals.py

+"""
+
+import pytest
+from unittest.mock import Mock, AsyncMock, patch, call


Import of 'call' is not used.

Suggested change

from unittest.mock import Mock, AsyncMock, patch, call

from unittest.mock import Mock, AsyncMock, patch

efunneko

There are a couple of changes that are needed. You can ask for more detail from me if you need it

efunneko · 2025-12-05T18:34:15Z

src/solace_agent_mesh/agent/adk/callbacks.py

-                                await _publish_data_part_status_update(
-                                    host_component, a2a_context, progress_data
-                                )
+                            # Don't send completion signal here - it will be sent later


I don't really like that we are overloading this event for all artifact creation events. There is a protocol to how they are created with a start ... updates ... end which we would be violating. My preference would be to have another event that would be just to indicate that an artifact has been save and we restore this code to what it was

efunneko · 2025-12-05T18:55:33Z

src/solace_agent_mesh/agent/utils/artifact_helpers.py

+                    )
+
+                    # Publish as status update with signal
+                    await _publish_data_part_status_update(


I don't like having this in a utility file - especially calling a "_" function (I realize we do it in callbacks.py and that should be fixed). We should define a function (probably in sac/component.py) that is called from here to notify_artifact_creation(). You should pass in an "ArtifactInfo" with all the information about the artifact and pass in an optional 'function_call_id". Then the publishing stuff can be where it belongs and this code is reduced a lot

Should I update callbacks.py to use a separate function instead of _publish_data_part_status_update() when notifying about artifact completion, or consider it out of scope for these changes?

RZuchniak added 9 commits November 24, 2025 14:52

feat: initial attempt

c638144

fix: typescript errors

8a0e659

feat: artifacts created from fenced blocks

9b5cf56

fix: switch to serperate A2A event

6fb3e42

fix revert some code

878efba

fix: switch back to old signal

402c9c4

fix: remove old code

d669f44

chore: remove old tests

306c310

chore: move test

909827b

RZuchniak requested review from cyrus2281 and efunneko December 2, 2025 16:42

RZuchniak requested a review from Copilot December 2, 2025 16:48

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of RZuchniak December 2, 2025 16:48 View session

Copilot finished reviewing on behalf of RZuchniak December 2, 2025 16:52

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

RZuchniak added 2 commits December 2, 2025 13:45

fix: node position calculations

b90a77f

fix: add test for llm generated artifacts

9df3f1e

efunneko requested changes Dec 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat(DATAGO-117907): Show created artifacts in the workflow diagram #607

feat(DATAGO-117907): Show created artifacts in the workflow diagram #607

RZuchniak commented Dec 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

efunneko left a comment

Uh oh!

efunneko Dec 5, 2025

Uh oh!

efunneko Dec 5, 2025

Uh oh!

RZuchniak Dec 5, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

	const artifactRight = artifactX + NODE_WIDTH / 2;
	const artifactRight = artifactX + NODE_WIDTH;

	None, description="The function call ID if artifact was created by a tool."
	None,
	description="The function call ID linking this artifact to the tool call that created it, used for workflow diagram visualization. Populated only when the artifact is created by a tool call."

	from unittest.mock import Mock, AsyncMock, patch, call
	from unittest.mock import Mock, AsyncMock, patch

feat(DATAGO-117907): Show created artifacts in the workflow diagram #607

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat(DATAGO-117907): Show created artifacts in the workflow diagram #607

Conversation

RZuchniak commented Dec 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Changes

Considerations

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

WhiteSource Policy Violation Summary

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

efunneko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

efunneko Dec 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

efunneko Dec 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

RZuchniak Dec 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

RZuchniak commented Dec 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading