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

chore(host): imrpove wording for spec/provider ref mismatch #1850

Conversation

vados-cosmonic
Copy link
Contributor

Feature or Problem

This commit slightly improves the wording when a provider ID and component specification URL mismatch occurs, along with specifying a possible solution.

This error is thrown by wash and it's a bit difficult to figure out what to resolve it otherwise.

Related Issues

Release Information

Consumer Impact

Testing

Unit Test(s)

Acceptance or Integration

Manual Verification

This commit slightly improves the wording when a provider ID and
component specification URL mismatch occurs, along with specifying a
possible solution.

This error is thrown by `wash` and it's a bit difficult to figure out
what to resolve it otherwise.

Signed-off-by: Victor Adossi <vadossi@cosmonic.com>
@vados-cosmonic vados-cosmonic requested a review from a team as a code owner April 9, 2024 13:44
Copy link
Member

@brooksmtownsend brooksmtownsend left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah shoot, we should probably remove this check anyways to match the change in #1829 . No harm in inserting this, but you could just remove the check entirely in favor of checking to see if the provider is already running.

Since there's no update provider command, I think we definitely have to allow people to overwrite it

@vados-cosmonic vados-cosmonic merged commit e8aac21 into wasmCloud:main Apr 9, 2024
49 checks passed
@vados-cosmonic vados-cosmonic deleted the chore(host)=improve-wording-for-spec-url-mismatch branch April 9, 2024 14:26
@vados-cosmonic
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah I'm a bit wary as people need to be careful not to depend on the values in there without checking for updates, but will follow up with a removal of the check!

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants