fix(9656): stores all states except workflows, fixes #9656

[athityakumar]

Fixes #9656

Please do not open a pull request until you have checked ALL of these:

• Create the PR as draft .
• Run make pre-commit -B to fix codegen and lint problems.
• Sign-off your commits (otherwise the DCO check will fail).
• Use a conventional commit message (otherwise the commit message check will fail).
• "Fixes #" is in both the PR title (for release notes) and this description (to automatically link and close the issue).
• Add unit or e2e tests. Say how you tested your changes. If you changed the UI, attach screenshots.

The workflows key/value is no longer stored in browser's local storage for archived workflows page, after this change:

• Github checks are green.
• Once required tests have passed, mark your PR "Ready for review".

If changes were requested, and you've made them, dismiss the review to get it reviewed again.

[alexec]

I don't think this is the correct approach. A new objects should be constructed with only allowed fields.

[alexec]

interface Options {
        namespace: string
        name: string
        namePrefix: string
        selectedPhases: string[]
        selectedLabels: string[]
        minStartedAt: Date
        maxStartedAt: Date
        pagination: Pagination
}

[athityakumar]

@alexec - But that'd mean we have to set the attributes manually for the new options variable, which is an Options interface object right? @juliev0 had raised a concern earlier that manually specifying attributes may have a maintenance overhead (if/when we add a new attribute to State interface, we'd also have to add it to the Options interface and in the function that converts the State object to Options object) - due to which I tried to automate the logic by taking blacklistedStates as an input.

Please lmk if Options is the preferred approach - I can update my PR with the same changes 😄

[athityakumar]

Ping @alexec @sarabala1979 ^

[alexec]

I think it preferable to construct new object to write lots of code to black list fields. Less code to maintain I think.

[athityakumar]

@sarabala1979 @alexec - Any next steps on this PR? Please lmk if any action is required from my side 😄