Skip to content
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

feat: Better clarity for envd destroy #1336

Closed
AlexXi19 opened this issue Dec 23, 2022 · 9 comments · Fixed by #1568
Closed

feat: Better clarity for envd destroy #1336

AlexXi19 opened this issue Dec 23, 2022 · 9 comments · Fixed by #1568
Assignees

Comments

@AlexXi19
Copy link
Member

Description

Using envd destroy incorrectly can be a bit confusing.

Here I was trying to destroy airsolar and the response seemed successful. However, envd_playground was the one that actually got deleted. This can be a bit confusing because the error message shows that the environment is successfully destroyed (even though it's not the right one).

image

There could be an extra step to determine cases like these where the users are using the destroy command incorrectly and help them notice the error.


Message from the maintainers:

Love this enhancement proposal? Give it a 👍. We prioritise the proposals with the most 👍.

@gaocegege
Copy link
Member

/cc @kemingy @VoVAllen

@kemingy
Copy link
Member

kemingy commented Dec 23, 2022

I think it's also related to #1075

@VoVAllen VoVAllen added the good first issue ❤️ Good for newcomers label Dec 30, 2022
@AlexXi19
Copy link
Member Author

image

To add on to this, deleting non-existent environments can also show success, which can be confusing if you make a typo.

@cutecutecat
Copy link
Member

If path and name are not specified either, envd will destroy build.envd at cwd path as default.
This is confiusing, I agree, to let it fail fast here maybe better.

path = "."

@hxu296
Copy link
Contributor

hxu296 commented Apr 19, 2023

Would #1075 be a blocker for this issue? Otherwise I would like to work on this issue :)

I'm learning this codebase and this issue seems to be a good starting point. @gaocegege @cutecutecat

@gaocegege
Copy link
Member

Personally, I do not think it is a blocker, WDYT @kemingy @cutecutecat

@kemingy
Copy link
Member

kemingy commented Apr 19, 2023

It's not blocked but the user experience is affected by #1075.

@gaocegege
Copy link
Member

Yeah, that's right.

@hxu296
Copy link
Contributor

hxu296 commented Apr 19, 2023

Thanks for the prompt response! I will start working on this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants