deploy command support for drafts #679

amol- · 2025-06-06T14:11:01Z

Intent

Allows to deploy content without activating it.

Type of Change

New Feature

Approach

New command line option that injects the parameter only when necessary, this way it will be backward compatible with previous API when the parameter is not provided.

Automated Tests

test_deploy_draft runs the command with all possible permutations of content and activate=True/False

Directions for Reviewers

Currently the deploy doesn't output the url where the draft can be seen, that's planned for a follow-up PR as the two can be done in isolation.

Checklist

I have updated CHANGELOG.md to cover notable changes.
I have updated all related GitHub issues to reflect their current state.

github-actions · 2025-06-06T14:11:30Z

PR Preview Action v1.6.1
Preview removed because the pull request was closed.
2025-06-11 16:10 UTC

github-actions · 2025-06-06T14:38:33Z

☂️ Python Coverage

current status: ✅

Overall Coverage

Lines	Covered	Coverage	Threshold	Status
5110	3977	78%	0%	🟢

New Files

No new covered files...

Modified Files

File	Coverage	Status
rsconnect/api.py	77%	🟢
rsconnect/http_support.py	81%	🟢
rsconnect/main.py	69%	🟢
TOTAL	76%	🟢

updated for commit: 5be397a by action🐍

amol- · 2025-06-06T15:13:13Z

tests/test_main.py

+                ["voila", get_dir(join("pip1", "dummy.ipynb"))],
+            ]
+        ],
+    )


This is a bit confusing, but in practice it produces product of args * flag thus testing every deploy command with both flag=True and flag=False

amol- · 2025-06-10T14:35:01Z

rsconnect/api.py

        return (
            response.json_data
-            if response.status and response.status == 200 and response.json_data is not None
+            if response.status and response.status >= 200 and response.status <= 299 and response.json_data is not None


/content/X/deploy responds with a 201 and a JSON body

amol- · 2025-06-10T14:36:14Z

rsconnect/http_support.py

                for key, value in headers.items():
                    logger.debug("--> %s: %s" % (key, value))
+                logger.debug("Body:")
+                logger.debug("--> %s" % (body if body is not None else "<no body>"))


Added this extra logging of the Request body when in debug (-vvv) for convenient to see what the client exchanged with the server.

amol- · 2025-06-10T14:38:26Z

tests/utils.py

        args.extend(["--cacert", cacert])
    if insecure:
        args.extend(["--insecure"])
+    return args


Convenience so that I can do

args = apply_common_args(["deploy", command, target], server="http://fake_server", key="FAKE_API_KEY")

instead of

args = ["deploy", command, target] apply_common_args(args, server="http://fake_server", key="FAKE_API_KEY")

semantically is not the best that it both modifies in place and also returns the value as it might be confusing that the two are the same, but given that it's just a test helper it shouldn't be a big deal.

marcosnav · 2025-06-10T18:57:10Z

rsconnect/api.py

        app_bundle = self.app_upload(app_id, tarball)

-        task = self.app_deploy(app_id, app_bundle["id"])
+        task = self.content_deploy(app_guid, app_bundle["id"], activate=activate)


This was the only use of app_deploy, it might be worth clearing it up

app_deploy is in api, there were other APIs that were not used. I think it makes sense to cover all apis in the API module, independently from the ones we use. But if we are strong about removing the ones we don't use I'm ok with removing them.

marcosnav

Implementation wise, looks good to me, a couple non blocker items:

It'd be nice to clean up the app_deploy
I'm starting to question the use of the term "draft"

edavidaja · 2025-06-10T19:44:58Z

I thought we were calling this preview? or did we change the name upstream as well?

amol- · 2025-06-11T09:52:03Z

I thought we were calling this preview? or did we change the name upstream as well?

The name in Connect is "active", the word "preview" is primarily used as a verb to indicate the action of looking at a bundle that is not active, but not to set it as "active" or "not active".

during design there were a few discussions about glossary and one of the terms for the idea of deploying a new application with 0 active bundles was to deploy a draft. As a --not-active or --inactive option seemed terrible as a name, I chose to go for the "draft" name which seems to better convey the intent of the action, is short and is positive instead of negative (in the sense that "it does" instead of "it does not") which is usually better for command line options.

edavidaja · 2025-06-11T12:36:33Z

I think "preview deployment" is well-enough established as a noun in similar contexts (e.g. netlify, cloudflare, vercel, etc) that deploy --preview communicates the intent pretty clearly.

amol- · 2025-06-11T15:11:48Z

I think "preview deployment" is well-enough established as a noun in similar contexts (e.g. netlify, cloudflare, vercel, etc) that deploy --preview communicates the intent pretty clearly.

Agreed that is common enough, but "preview" was moved to "activate" as a term in the API.
So if we really want to rename it I'd prefer to go for a name that at least has adherence to the same glossary used by the APIs. But I think in this context "draft" better conveys the concept in the context of content

Also vercel itself uses both terms to more or less convey a similar concept 😅
And in the context of Content (and content management systems which Connect has a lot in common with) the term "draft" is fairly more common (IE: Payload CMS Next.js CMS ).

Generally speaking, the term "draft" seems to be attached to a persistent state that is not public (a version of a content that I never published but will sit there forever)
While the term "preview" seems to be attached to a transient action (preview this, but once I close the preview it goes away)
That's why I'd be more fond of "draft" in this context.

jonkeane · 2025-06-11T16:04:02Z

Let's go with what's here in the code now (which IIRC, is draft) ultimately what we think it should be called and debating it here isn't helpful — what matters is what will land with our users. Let's keep this in mind when we do user testing and see if folks find ... --draft awkward and we can revisit then.

draft argument to deploy command

3860846

amol- added 5 commits June 6, 2025 16:14

format

ec1d245

remove unused imports

06aceb6

Confirm deploy API was actually invoked

cfcf55a

format

acbb944

Do not validate, so we can use any directory

5ec10c4

amol- marked this pull request as ready for review June 6, 2025 15:09

Add CHANGELOD

5a2c5dc

amol- commented Jun 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

amol- added 6 commits June 6, 2025 17:20

Test generated deploys too

dfcc5cc

switch deploy to use v1 apis

2de9faa

Revert changes to v0 api

79c8d70

update deploy_draft tests

421f391

format

4e7b148

Use v1/content/deploy

ae19041

amol- commented Jun 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

amol- requested a review from marcosnav June 10, 2025 17:01

marcosnav reviewed Jun 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

marcosnav approved these changes Jun 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

v1 deploy actually reuses the DTO of build

5be397a

amol- mentioned this pull request Jun 11, 2025

Output the preview url in case of drafts #681

Merged

2 tasks

amol- merged commit 04be902 into main Jun 11, 2025
15 checks passed

amol- deleted the drafts-preview branch June 11, 2025 16:10

deploy command support for drafts #679

deploy command support for drafts #679

Uh oh!

Conversation

amol- commented Jun 6, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Intent

Type of Change

Approach

Automated Tests

Directions for Reviewers

Checklist

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 6, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 6, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

☂️ Python Coverage

Overall Coverage

New Files

Modified Files

Uh oh!

amol- Jun 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

amol- Jun 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

amol- Jun 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

amol- Jun 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marcosnav Jun 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

amol- Jun 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marcosnav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

edavidaja commented Jun 10, 2025

Uh oh!

amol- commented Jun 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

edavidaja commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

amol- commented Jun 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jonkeane commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

amol- commented Jun 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jun 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jun 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

amol- Jun 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

amol- commented Jun 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

amol- commented Jun 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading