Catch erroneous use of deployments view [deployment-id] --experimental-versions command

[RamIdeas]

What this PR solves / how to test

Adds a view command to the new deployments subcommands opted-in via the --experimental-versions flag which shows a deprecation message and points the user to either run wrangler deployments status --experimental-versions or wrangler versions view <version-id> --experimental-versions instead.

Author has addressed the following

• Tests
  • TODO (before merge)
  • Included
  • Not necessary because:
• Changeset (Changeset guidelines)
  • TODO (before merge)
  • Included
  • Not necessary because:
• Public documentation
  • TODO (before merge)
  • Cloudflare docs PR(s): https://github.com/cloudflare/cloudflare-docs/pull/...
  • Not necessary because:

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: d521a0a

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages

Name	Type
wrangler	Patch
@cloudflare/vitest-pool-workers	Patch

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

[github-actions]

A wrangler prerelease is available for testing. You can install this latest build in your project with:

npm install --save-dev https://prerelease-registry.devprod.cloudflare.dev/workers-sdk/runs/8450548979/npm-package-wrangler-5405

You can reference the automatically updated head of this PR with:

npm install --save-dev https://prerelease-registry.devprod.cloudflare.dev/workers-sdk/prs/5405/npm-package-wrangler-5405

Or you can use npx with this latest build directly:

npx https://prerelease-registry.devprod.cloudflare.dev/workers-sdk/runs/8450548979/npm-package-wrangler-5405 dev path/to/script.js

Additional artifacts:

npx https://prerelease-registry.devprod.cloudflare.dev/workers-sdk/runs/8450548979/npm-package-create-cloudflare-5405 --no-auto-update

npm install https://prerelease-registry.devprod.cloudflare.dev/workers-sdk/runs/8450548979/npm-package-cloudflare-kv-asset-handler-5405

npm install https://prerelease-registry.devprod.cloudflare.dev/workers-sdk/runs/8450548979/npm-package-miniflare-5405

npm install https://prerelease-registry.devprod.cloudflare.dev/workers-sdk/runs/8450548979/npm-package-cloudflare-pages-shared-5405

npm install https://prerelease-registry.devprod.cloudflare.dev/workers-sdk/runs/8450548979/npm-package-cloudflare-vitest-pool-workers-5405

Note that these links will no longer work once the GitHub Actions artifact expires.

---

wrangler@3.38.0 includes the following runtime dependencies:

Package	Constraint	Resolved
miniflare	workspace:*	3.20240320.0
workerd	1.20240320.1	1.20240320.1
workerd --version	1.20240320.1	2024-03-20

Please ensure constraints are pinned, and miniflare/workerd minor versions match.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 72.26%. Comparing base (c99c7e2) to head (d521a0a).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5405      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.16%   72.26%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         321      322       +1     
  Lines       16651    16663      +12     
  Branches     4258     4260       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        12017    12042      +25     
+ Misses       4634     4621      -13     

Files	Coverage Δ
...ackages/wrangler/src/versions/deployments/index.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
packages/wrangler/src/versions/deployments/view.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

[petebacondarwin]

What is the aim of adding a "new" command that is already deprecated?

Is it to catch people who are used to running a view command under a different sub-command?

Although running the "correct" command feels like it is helping users, I would say that in this case an error is better since it prevents users from starting down the wrong path at all, and in fact would allow this fake command to be removed in the future without a breaking change, since the only user facing change would be the replacement of the "helpful" error message with a more generic one.

I think one could actually go further and rather than call this "deprecated" you just say that we are providing a more helpful error message for an invalid command.

[RamIdeas]

What is the aim of adding a "new" command that is already deprecated?

Is it to catch people who are used to running a view command under a different sub-command?

Yeah pretty much. You'll note this command is marked as 'hidden' too.

Although running the "correct" command feels like it is helping users, I would say that in this case an error is better since it prevents users from starting down the wrong path at all, and in fact would allow this fake command to be removed in the future without a breaking change, since the only user facing change would be the replacement of the "helpful" error message with a more generic one.

Thanks for confirming – I agree.

I think one could actually go further and rather than call this "deprecated" you just say that we are providing a more helpful error message for an invalid command.

Yeah I like this. See my other comment for suggested change.