Blueprint: advanced inputs

Feature RequestsJun 13, 2025

Some inputs in a Blueprint are not for normal use, eg they change various parameters we might need during debugging but not during normal use.

I wish these inputs could be hidden by default in an “Advanced Options” accordion.

A broader feature request might be: Allow assigning inputs to an optional “Section”. Sections only affect the UI of blueprint creation screen. Inputs without a section are shown unchanged from today. Inputs with a section are grouped by section and shown in collapsed-by-default accordions. Section inputs appear after non-section inputs.

Example:

inputs:
  - id: name
    name: Stack name
  - id: ttl_hrs
    name: Stack TTL (hrs)
  - id: repo
    name: VCS repo to use
    default: myrepo
    section: Advanced
  - id: autoconfirm
    type: boolean
    default: true
    name: Autoconfirm tracked runs
  - id: branch
    name: VCS branch to use
    default: main
    section: Advanced

This results in a stack creation screen ordering of:

name
ttl_hrs
autoconfirm

Advanced Section (collapsed by default)
  repo
  branch

Workaround
Problem

❌ Rejected3

Jonah Kowall

Team•

Jul 12

Thanks for the request. This is now covered by Templates, which shipped with typed inputs (string/number/boolean/select), validations, and a CEL expression engine, and Blueprints can be exported to Templates: https://docs.spacelift.io/concepts/template. Closing in favor of Templates; if a specific input type or validation you need is missing there, please file it against Templates and we’ll pick it up.

Violet Highlighter

•

Jun 16, 2025

I’m trying to replicate a system like what’s visible in the screenshot. All sections except the first one are not shown by default.

What’s the real pain today? Is it confusion for users? Visual clutter? Mistakes made from editing the wrong input?

All of the above!

How often would these “advanced” inputs be used?

Rarely (5-10% of the time)

Have you tried documenting or prefixing them as “Advanced”? If so, what didn’t work?

This works, but the majority of inputs are “Advanced” so this adds visual clutter

What would success look like? Faster onboarding, fewer errors, cleaner UI?

Ability to replicate a similar UI to the screenshot

Natalia Gazda

Team•

Jun 13, 2025

Thanks for the suggestion!

To help us better understand what you're trying to solve, can we dig into a few things?

What’s the real pain today? Is it confusion for users? Visual clutter? Mistakes made from editing the wrong input?
How often would these “advanced” inputs be used?
Have you tried documenting or prefixing them as “Advanced”? If so, what didn’t work?
What would success look like? Faster onboarding, fewer errors, cleaner UI?

As a quick workaround there is an option to have defaults for input fields and mark them as “Advanced” in the form. Would that work?

Blueprint: advanced inputs

Comments3