feat(shorebird_cli): add shorebird collaborators delete
#510
Conversation
| @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ ${styleBold.wrap(lightGreen.wrap('🚀 Ready to add a new collaborator!'))} | |||
|
|
|||
| final progress = logger.progress('Adding collaborator'); | |||
| try { | |||
| await client.createAppCollaborator(appId: appId, email: collaborator); | |||
| await client.createCollaborator(appId: appId, email: collaborator); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
renamed for consistency
| printNeedsAuthInstructions(); | ||
| return ExitCode.noUser.code; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might be redundant, but should we add a check that shorebird is initialized here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It shouldn't be necessary since we prompt if a shorebird.yaml isn't detected and an app-id is not supplied.
| ''', | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| final confirm = logger.confirm('Would you like to continue?'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be good to include a sentence about the implications of removing a collaborator. "$email will no longer be able to publish releases or patches to this app".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good happy to adjust the copy. I was planning to add some docs around this at docs.shorebird.dev as well.
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('returns ExitCode.usage when app id is missing.', () async { | ||
| when(() => argResults['app-id']).thenReturn(null); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we testing fetching the appId from shorebird.yaml?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good catch fixed in #511
Description
shorebird collaborators delete(closes Make it possible for two people to collaborate on an App #216)Type of Change