Order of the launchpad workflow steps

[cmoulliard]

s there a logic that we follow in order to propose the workflow of the mission [1] -->
From "Deployment Type" -> "Mission" -> "Runtime ?

If our strategy is to promote the "Runtimes" part of the product "Red Hat OpenShift Application Runtimes", we should rearrange the order and start with the Runtimes, the mission and finally the DeploymentType. Moreover, if the list of the missions is different between the runtimes, it could be better to first select the runtime before the mission

From "Runtime" -> "Mission" -> "DeploymentType"

Make sense ?

[1] : https://www.dropbox.com/s/fr5jhdptkyttof1/Screenshot%202017-04-26%2009.59.25.png?dl=0

[quintesse]

One of the reasons for having the "Deployment Type" first is because some of the fields you have to enter in the form are dependent on that choice (there's no need to give the GitHub repo name or the OpenShift project name if you're just going to download the zip).
But perhaps the form could be split in 2. First you ask the things that are required for both and if you then later choose the Continuous Delivery option you get another form with the remaining questions.

[gastaldi]

IMHO As long as the Metadata step is the last one, anything before that can be changed as needed.

[jstrachan]

actually I had a similar thought when using the new wizard inside OSIO - I'd prefer Runtime before Mission as for many runtimes we may not have multiple missions.

e.g. if we've only 1 quickstart for things like node, rust, php, python, go for a while - it'd be nice to just start with Runtime then show Mission if there's > 1 missions for that runtime?