Add validation for Agentflow generation

[VanRitzOwen]

Summary

Fixes UI state/validation issues around Agentflow generation and DocStore credential selection by ensuring node input updates propagate correctly and by enforcing mandatory-field validation for the selected chat model.

Changes

Agentflow Generator Dialog

• Added a mandatory-field validation helper (checkMandatoryFields) to verify required inputs for the selected chat model (excluding hidden/non-displayed params).
• Added a reusable warning snackbar helper to provide clear feedback when required fields are missing.
• Updated the Generate button disabled logic to also block generation when mandatory fields are incomplete.
• Added a pre-submit guard to prevent the generate flow from running when required fields are missing.

DocStore Input Handler

• Ensured selecting a credential triggers nodeDataChangeHandler(...) so downstream verification/UI state updates occur immediately.

Why

• Previously, certain required inputs (notably credential-dependent inputs) could be updated in the UI without triggering the necessary node update/verification path, leaving Generate incorrectly disabled or allowing incomplete submissions.
• This MR ensures the UI state reflects user input changes and provides deterministic validation prior to generation.

Testing

Manual verification:

1. Open Agentflow Generator dialog.
2. Select a chat model with mandatory fields.
3. Confirm:
   • Generate remains disabled until required fields are populated.
   • Clicking Generate with missing fields shows a warning listing missing fields.
4. In DocStore credential selection:
   • Change/select a credential.
   • Confirm node data change is propagated immediately (no stale disabled state/validation state).

Risk / Impact

• Low-to-medium UI-only change.
• Main risk is validation logic incorrectly identifying “required” fields (e.g., hidden/display=false params) — mitigated by filtering out hidden/non-displayed params.

Checklist

• No backend/schema changes
• Validation prevents incomplete submissions
• UI state updates when credential value changes
• Manual test coverage for Agentflow + DocStore flows

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @VanRitzOwen, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves UI state and validation inconsistencies within the Agentflow generation and DocStore credential selection processes. It introduces robust validation for mandatory chat model parameters and ensures that UI changes, particularly credential selections, are immediately reflected and propagated, thereby preventing incomplete submissions and improving the overall user experience by providing accurate feedback.

Highlights

• Mandatory Field Validation: Implemented a new checkMandatoryFields helper function to validate all required inputs for the selected chat model, excluding hidden or non-displayed parameters.
• Warning Snackbar: Added a reusable displayWarning helper to provide clear feedback to users when mandatory fields are missing.
• Generate Button Logic: Updated the 'Generate' button's disabled state to also account for incomplete mandatory fields, preventing premature submissions.
• Pre-submit Validation Guard: Introduced a pre-submit check in the onGenerate function to ensure all required fields are filled before initiating the generation process.
• DocStore Credential Propagation: Ensured that selecting a credential in the DocStore input handler immediately triggers nodeDataChangeHandler to update the UI state correctly.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces important validation for the Agentflow generation dialog. The changes ensure that mandatory fields for the selected chat model are filled before generation can proceed, improving the user experience by preventing incomplete submissions. This is achieved by adding a checkMandatoryFields helper, disabling the 'Generate' button when necessary, and displaying a warning snackbar. Additionally, a fix in the DocStoreInputHandler ensures that credential selections correctly trigger UI updates. The implementation is solid, but I've identified a significant bug in the validation logic that would incorrectly reject valid inputs like false or 0, and a minor typo in a user-facing message. My review includes suggestions to address these points.