Improve CLI arguments for the wrangler deploy command by adding a new generic --path option and making the --script option explicit

[dario-piotrowicz]

Fixes https://jira.cfdata.org/browse/DEVX-2333

Before:

After:

Describe your change...

---

• Tests
  • Tests included
  • Tests not necessary because:
• Public documentation
  • Cloudflare docs PR(s):
  • Documentation not necessary because: this will be automatically(?) documented
• Wrangler V3 Backport
  • Wrangler PR:
  • Not necessary because: Providing an assets directory to wrangler deploy has been added as a new v4-only functionality (see #10016)

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 755914e

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@11371

@cloudflare/kv-asset-handler

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/kv-asset-handler@11371

miniflare

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/miniflare@11371

@cloudflare/pages-shared

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/pages-shared@11371

@cloudflare/unenv-preset

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/unenv-preset@11371

@cloudflare/vite-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/vite-plugin@11371

@cloudflare/vitest-pool-workers

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/vitest-pool-workers@11371

@cloudflare/workers-editor-shared

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/workers-editor-shared@11371

@cloudflare/workers-utils

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@cloudflare/workers-utils@11371

wrangler

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/wrangler@11371

commit: 755914e

[petebacondarwin]

I think we should validate that an explicit --script arg points to a file (and not a directory).

[petebacondarwin]

Would this really be a breaking change?
The use must have opted in to providing the --script arg, so they can expect different behaviour, no?

[dario-piotrowicz]

Would this really be a breaking change? The use must have opted in to providing the --script arg, so they can expect different behaviour, no?

mh.... sorry I am not sure I follow...

Let's say that the user has a CI job or script or anything that automatically runs wrangler deploy --script <PATH>, if we caused this to behave differently here, wouldn't that constitute as a breaking change?

[dario-piotrowicz]

I think we should validate that an explicit --script arg points to a file (and not a directory).

Mh.... as I mentioned I think that --script needs to be able to point to a directory, that is how things work today (wrangler deploy --script <ASSETS_DIR> works totally fine), changing such behavior would be a breaking change, wouldn't it? 😕

[petebacondarwin]

I think we should validate that an explicit --script arg points to a file (and not a directory).

Mh.... as I mentioned I think that --script needs to be able to point to a directory, that is how things work today (wrangler deploy --script <ASSETS_DIR> works totally fine), changing such behavior would be a breaking change, wouldn't it? 😕

Oh gosh! Can you actually do --script right now, even though in the definition it is a positional arg? I didn't realise things worked like that. Shame.

What if we make script hidden and have a new positional called --main or something? So that we can define the behaviour of that accurately?

[petebacondarwin]

Then we would have path (which has a hidden alias of script), --assets and --main.

[penalosa]

Oh gosh! Can you actually do --script right now, even though in the definition it is a positional arg? I didn't realise things worked like that. Shame.

Yeah, it's super weird behaviour from yargs

[dario-piotrowicz]

What if we make script hidden and have a new positional called --main or something? So that we can define the behaviour of that accurately?

Closing this PR since introducing a new main option and hide script would need to be done across the board I believe (having some commands accept --script and some --main would in my opinion provide a very confusing and unclear UX) and for that most of this PR would be changed anyways.

Also the scope and risks involved would be significantly higher (I am not even completely sure if that'd be worth the effort?).

I'll try to come back to this when I'll have some bandwidth.