Use cli-progress library directly instead of via oclif
#5046
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mat-if
force-pushed
the
mat/progress-bars
branch
from
75b3c19 to
3350e6d
Compare
oclif removes this from their library in the 4.x upgrade. This change is in preparation for that. On top of that, it builds a cleaner abstraction for using the progress bars. This will enable us to develop CLI tools using progress bars faster, while keeping the design more consistent.
mat-if
force-pushed
the
mat/progress-bars
branch
from
3350e6d to
7b1dc33
Compare
dguenther
approved these changes
Jun 17, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
oclif removes this from their library in the 4.x upgrade. This change is in preparation for that.
On top of that, it builds a cleaner abstraction for using the progress bars. This will enable us to develop CLI tools using progress bars faster, while keeping the design more consistent.
Trade-offs
I knowingly removed the extra "label" for the
current / totaldisplay, mostly for ease of developing this change. However, I am not sure how useful it really is. If we want it, I can re-add it. Otherwise, just making note of it.Testing Plan
Need to manually verify the commands as much as I can
Documentation
Does this change require any updates to the Iron Fish Docs (ex. the RPC API
Reference)? If yes, link a
related documentation pull request for the website.
Breaking Change
Is this a breaking change? If yes, add notes below on why this is breaking and label it with
breaking-change-rpcorbreaking-change-sdk.