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

Alias "twilio api:serverless:v1:services:remove" to twilio serverless:remove #310

Closed
deshartman opened this issue Jul 12, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@deshartman
Copy link

Looking at the Twilio Serverless help, the one item that seems to be missing is to remove a serverless deployment. It is contained in the more generic api service.

Seems like a handy addition to create new "remove" option that does what the "twilio api:serverless:v1:services:remove" does. Brings it together under the one umbrella.

    twilio serverless:COMMAND
    
    COMMANDS
      serverless:deploy          deploys your local serverless project
      serverless:init            creates a new Twilio Serverless project
      serverless:list            lists services, projects and similar related to your project
      serverless:list-templates  Lists the available Twilio Function templates
      serverless:logs            Print logs from your Twilio Serverless project
      serverless:new             bootstraps a new function in your local project
      serverless:promote         moves an active deployment from one environment to another
      serverless:start           starts a local development environment
      serveless:remove           removes a service from Twilio Functions
@dkundel
Copy link
Member

dkundel commented Jul 13, 2021

Hey @deshartman the reason why we haven't added that functionality yet is because we had no design of providing any other additional functionality at which point we don't implement a single API request primarily because everything under api:* is auto-generated meaning it will always be up-to-date with what the API can do while serverless:* is handcrafted. That being said I just created #311 and these two proposals might fit well together. Would love to hear your opinion.

@deshartman
Copy link
Author

Comments left in #311. I think it is a better approach, so we can close this one

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants