fix: Generalize autoconfig wording

[dario-piotrowicz]

Fixes https://jira.cfdata.org/browse/DEVX-2314

This PR Generalizes the autoconfig wording so that when it doesn't specifically mention "deployment" (since it can be run via wrangler setup or the autoconfig programmatic API)

---

• Tests
  • Tests included
  • Tests not necessary because: These error messages are not actually tested anyways
• Public documentation
  • Cloudflare docs PR(s):
  • Documentation not necessary because: error message updates
• Wrangler V3 Backport
  • Wrangler PR:
  • Not necessary because: autoconfig is not a v3 feature

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: cc9e94a

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[pkg-pr-new]

create-cloudflare

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/create-cloudflare@11249

@cloudflare/kv-asset-handler

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/kv-asset-handler@11249

miniflare

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/miniflare@11249

@cloudflare/pages-shared

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/pages-shared@11249

@cloudflare/unenv-preset

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/unenv-preset@11249

@cloudflare/vite-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/vite-plugin@11249

@cloudflare/vitest-pool-workers

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/vitest-pool-workers@11249

@cloudflare/workers-editor-shared

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/workers-editor-shared@11249

@cloudflare/workers-utils

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/workers-utils@11249

wrangler

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/wrangler@11249

commit: cc9e94a

[petebacondarwin]

No tests affected by this?

[dario-piotrowicz]

No tests affected by this?

No, because these are just error messages that we were not testing before

Also the Deployment aborted now Autoconfig process aborted is, I think, likely a temporary one

I'm happy to add tests here if you'd like some 🙂
(I'm happy with both having them or not for something this minor)

[petebacondarwin]

I'm not fussed about testing the actual logged messages, but wonder whether we should be testing the logic where we bail out of autoconfig under certain circumstances.

[dario-piotrowicz]

I'm not fussed about testing the actual logged messages, but wonder whether we should be testing the logic where we bail out of autoconfig under certain circumstances.

Yeah good point, I think there are a couple of scenarios that are missing tests here, I can do that as a followup or here, whatever works best for you 🙂

[petebacondarwin]

Has rebase conflicts.

[github-actions]

Failed to automatically backport this PR's changes to Wrangler v3. Please manually create a PR targeting the v3-maintenance branch with your changes. Thank you for helping us keep Wrangler v3 supported!

Depending on your changes, running git rebase --onto v3-maintenance main dario/DEVX-2314/autoconfig-deployment-wording might be a good starting point.

Notes:

• your PR branch should be named v3-backport-11249
• add the skip-v3-pr label to the current PR to stop this workflow from failing

[dario-piotrowicz]

@petebacondarwin I've added a test for the output directory error case 🙂

55b9ca9

As I mentioned I am not sure if a test for the abort case is needed/correct right now, but I am happy to add one if you disagree 🙂

[ascorbic]

I don't think "autoconfig" is a user-facing term.

[ascorbic]

Maybe "Setup cancelled"?

[penalosa]

Framework detection cancelled?

[dario-piotrowicz]

Maybe "Setup cancelled"?

sounds good, updated 👍

[dario-piotrowicz]

Framework detection cancelled?

But the project might be a static one not using a framework, no? 🤔