-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 88
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
chore: deprecate dfx wallet redeem-faucet-coupon
#3514
chore: deprecate dfx wallet redeem-faucet-coupon
#3514
Conversation
9e3ce89
to
5919398
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's great to notice that a command's location isn't going to make sense after some upcoming change, and to move it accordingly.
In the past, when we've removed a command, we've deprecated it first, and then removed it in a later version. This makes it so developers can upgrade, and will have time to make changes after noticing a change like this.
What would you think about doing the same here?
Absolutely, that makes complete sense. In the meantime, the same has been discussed on Slack with @dfx-json & @sesi200; the current plan is to:
|
5919398
to
0059e8d
Compare
…ommand_to_dfx-cycles-redeem-faucet-coupon
dfx wallet redeem-faucet-coupon
to dfx cycles ...
dfx wallet redeem-faucet-coupon
@@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ enum SubCommand { | |||
Custodians(custodians::CustodiansOpts), | |||
Deauthorize(deauthorize::DeauthorizeOpts), | |||
Name(name::NameOpts), | |||
#[deprecated( | |||
note = "This command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Eventually, the wallet canister will become an dfx extension." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should say what command they should use instead. The deprecation warning doesn't need to mention the intention to move the functionality to an extension.
Also, we should display the deprecation warning at runtime. As far as I can tell, this is only displayed at compile time.
note = "This command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Eventually, the wallet canister will become an dfx extension." | |
note = "This command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Use XXXXXX instead." |
$ dfx-wip wallet redeem-faucet-coupon abc
WARN: Trying to redeem a wallet coupon on a local replica. Did you forget to use '--network ic'?
Redeeming coupon. This may take up to 30 seconds...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
right... 🤦
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changelog should also mention the deprecation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall I would recommend putting this deprecation warning message in the PR that introduces the command that replaces it.
The goal is that someone who sees the deprecation warning can act on it, by replacing their call to the old command with a call to the new command.
Closing in favor of #3569 |
Description
Upcoming PR will introduce functionality allowing for redeeming the coupon straight into cycles-ledger (no wallet involved), making
wallet
part of the command a bit confusing.Additionally, we wish to steer people away from
dfx wallet
unless they really want to use one.How Has This Been Tested?
covered by CI
Checklist: