Closed dckc closed 7 months ago
Hey @dckc, following the discussions in the extended docs revamp standup this morning, would it make sense if I just work on polishing this PR and get it merged in?
My planned course of actions:
offer-up
in this repo to agoric-basics
finishing this would be one way to do it, but I don't know that the history adds much value.
I suggest we start this app just like creating your dapp section of Getting Started tells our audience to create theirs:
yarn create @agoric/dapp --dapp-template dapp-offer-up dapp-agoric-basics
remove the UI code and test for now while the goals for UI are being planned and focus on contract code first
I don't object, but I don't see why we would remove it. We'll want tests for the dapp-agoric-basics UI, right?
but I don't know that the history adds much value
Agree. Maybe we make this change (or something like it) upstream to provide more info in the initial commit message?
diff --git a/packages/agoric-cli/src/init.js b/packages/agoric-cli/src/init.js
index e2e3a0b51..95c28f095 100644
--- a/packages/agoric-cli/src/init.js
+++ b/packages/agoric-cli/src/init.js
@@ -50,6 +50,9 @@ export default async function initMain(_progname, rawArgs, priv, opts) {
throw Error('cannot clone');
}
+ const commitHash = await pspawn('git', ['rev-parse', 'HEAD'], {
+ cwd: DIR,
+ });
await pspawn('rm', ['-rf', '.git'], { cwd: DIR });
await pspawn('git', ['init'], { cwd: DIR });
@@ -78,7 +81,11 @@ export default async function initMain(_progname, rawArgs, priv, opts) {
await pspawn('git', ['add', '.'], { cwd: DIR });
await pspawn(
'git',
- ['commit', '-m', `chore: agoric init ${DIR}\n\nImported from ${dappURL}`],
+ [
+ 'commit',
+ '-m',
+ `chore: agoric init ${DIR}\n\nImported from ${dappURL}\nCommit: ${commitHash}`,
+ ],
{
cwd: DIR,
}
That seems like a reasonable enhancement to the agoric
cli, but to make use of it in yarn create ...
involves waiting for it to get into a release.
Adding more info to the initial commit is a fine idea, and we can do that with git commit --amend
and no waiting, right?
btw... the history would be of value if we're actually merging dapp-offer-up and dapp-agoric-basics into one app. But (a) I don't think I have convinced the team on that one, and (b) in that case, it would make more sense to just rename the dapp-offer-up repo.
obsolete in favor of #6
I wonder about having this repository subsume https://github.com/Agoric/dapp-offer-up .
For the 4-panel dapp, we can either use a different
ui/
directory and more files undercontract/
... but that doesn't expose the 2 things viayarn create @agoric/dapp ...
. So perhaps the 4-panel thing should be a separate branch:--dapp-branch offer-up
vs--dapp-branch basics
.Meanwhile, dapp-offer-up has a significant issues list and some pending PRs. So renaming it to
dapp-agoric-basics
is probably better than this approach.