chore: Make server:update command more informative #827
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: tolusha The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Signed-off-by: Anatolii Bazko <abazko@redhat.com>
src/commands/server/update.ts
Outdated
|
|
||
| export default class Update extends Command { | ||
| static description = 'update Eclipse Che server' | ||
| static description = `Update Eclipse Che server to ${getImageTag(DEFAULT_CHE_OPERATOR_IMAGE)} version.` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have hardcoded version of Che server to update to here. So just running chectl server:update is not enough (otherwise user will see a message that Che server is up to date, however in reality it could be pretty old). The right flow as of now is to, firstly, update chectl, secondly, Che server. As we cannot just update Che server without chectl update, probably we have to improve the flow. It would be good to check for chectl update if chectl server:update says "up to date" and maybe ask user to comfirm automatic update. This could be tricky to implement, so maybe it worth to create a separate issue for that. I think we should at least print warning to user, that it is required to update chectl first using command ****.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I realized that in case of olm the description will be irrelevant.
Signed-off-by: Anatolii Bazko abazko@redhat.com
What does this PR do?
Provides more information to a user before before updating Eclipse Che
What issues does this PR fix or reference?
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CRW-1175