Change execTree "pretty" representation to include executable IDs

[jtratner]

I like the pretty representation quite a bit - really nice and easy to read, but it'd be better if it included executable IDs. I.e., rather than this:

Workflow: example
????App Inputs: common
????App Task: main
????App Task: another
????App Fragment: scatter (o in another.out)
?   ????Workflow: example_block_2
?       ????App Task: final
?       ????App Fragment: scatter (o2 in final.out)
?           ????App Task: another
????App Outputs: outputs

You'd see:

Workflow: example (workflow-123)
????App Inputs: common (applet-123)
????App Task: main (applet-123)
????App Task: another (applet-YYY)
????App Fragment: scatter (o in another.out) (applet-123)
?   ????Workflow: example_block_2 (workflow-123)
?       ????App Task: final (applet-123)
?       ????App Fragment: scatter (o2 in final.out) (applet-123)
?           ????App Task: another (applet-YYY)
????App Outputs: outputs (applet-123)

Which makes for a nice copy/pasteable and comprehensible experience for the user :)

It'd also be neat if you could run execTree on an existing dxWDL-compiled workflow, but not sure how feasbile that is.

[xquek]

Hi Jeff, we made a new release of dxWDL today - dxWDL-v1.47.jar. You are now able to get the exectree from workflows compiled with dxWDL-v1.47.jar.

For more information please refer to the describe option docs.

We did not include the execution Id in the pretty tree, but you will be able to get the information from the json format.

Let me know this addresses your issue.