fix workflow not found bug

[wintonzheng]

Important

Fixes bug in execute_workflow to correctly handle template workflows by setting organization_id to None.

• Behavior:
  • Fixes bug in execute_workflow in agent_protocol.py where organization_id is set to None if template is true, ensuring correct retrieval of template workflows.

^{This description was created by for dffa61b. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on dffa61b in 1 minute and 11 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. skyvern/forge/sdk/routes/agent_protocol.py:704

• Draft comment:
  Ensure get_workflow_by_permanent_id correctly handles organization_id=None for template workflows. Consider adding a comment or documentation on why organization_id is omitted when template is True.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  This comment violates several rules:

1. It starts with "Ensure that..." which is asking the author to verify something
2. It's asking for documentation without strong evidence that it's needed
3. It's speculative - it assumes there might be an issue with handling None
4. There's no clear evidence of a problem that needs fixing
   Could there be a real issue with None handling that needs to be documented? Maybe the function has complex None handling logic that should be explained?
   Without seeing the implementation of get_workflow_by_permanent_id, we can't know if there's any complex None handling. The code looks straightforward - it just passes None when it's a template. We should assume the function works correctly unless we see evidence otherwise.
   Delete this comment. It's asking for verification and documentation without clear evidence that either is needed.

2. skyvern/forge/sdk/routes/agent_protocol.py:704

• Draft comment:
  Good change: now passing organization_id=None for template workflows. Ensure that get_workflow_by_permanent_id handles a None value correctly and add corresponding tests/documentation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_AVDK66Ov7YvPTqKa

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to dffa61b in 1 minute and 32 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. skyvern/forge/sdk/routes/agent_protocol.py:704

• Draft comment:
  Ensure get_workflow_by_permanent_id accepts organization_id=None for template workflows. Consider adding a comment explaining the rationale.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

2. skyvern/forge/sdk/routes/agent_protocol.py:704

• Draft comment:
  Good fix. Passing organization_id as None when 'template' is True ensures global workflows are queried. Verify that get_workflow_by_permanent_id correctly handles None and that this change doesn't affect non-template lookups.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment appears to be explaining what the code does and then asking for verification. It's not identifying any specific issue or suggesting any changes. The comment starts with an explanation of what the code does, but then asks to "Verify that..." which is a red flag based on the rules. The rules specifically say to NOT ask the PR author to verify, confirm, or double-check things.
  The comment does accurately explain what the code is doing. Maybe there is a real issue with how None is handled that should be flagged?
  While the comment's explanation is accurate, it doesn't identify any actual problems. If there were real concerns about None handling, the comment should state them directly rather than asking for verification. The rules are clear that we should not ask authors to verify things.
  This comment should be deleted because it merely asks for verification without identifying any specific issues. It violates the rule against asking authors to verify or confirm things.

Workflow ID: wflow_KzneTJQQchmc1O8R

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.