You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is somewhat subjective, but I can't help but feel like some of the command groups within the appservice module are unnecessarily deep, and could be potentially simplified a little bit.
One area that I've noticed being a bit "wordy" is working with deployment slots for a web app. For example, to swap two slots, you need to run the following command: az appservice web deployment slot swap, which is quite a mouthful.
I can't help but feel like slots are a valuable enough concept that they could be promoted directly underneath the web group, which would reduce the extra group level (i.e. deployment), and allow typing az appservice web slot swap, which is quite a bit more ergonomic.
Another example of a commonly-used command group, that would potentially be nice to "promote" is appservice web config appsettings. I completely appreciate the logical/semantic grouping of commands, but at the same time, in my usage, I feel like having four levels of command group nesting (for commonly-used features), gets a bit tiresome to use. Could appsettings also be lifted directly underneath web? It feels like that would be helpful, but that could just be me.
The storage module is a good example of a command group that could have been nested more deeply than it is (e.g. both blob and container are top-level groups underneath storage, as opposed to nesting them underneath a more general group for blob-related commands), and the act of flattening groups a little bit makes the overall experience better.
In general, I'd love to see some simplifications of the App service commands, but in particular, it would be great to try to reduce group depth for commonly used commands.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In addition to "lifting" the appsettings command group up a level, I'd also like to propose renaming it to env. This not only shortens it (to improve efficiency), but I feel like that is a more idiomatic name for what they represent: environment variables.
panchagnula
changed the title
[App Service] [Discussion] Promote the slot/appsettings command groups up a level
[webapp] [Discussion] Promote the slot/appsettings command groups up a level
Jun 1, 2018
This is somewhat subjective, but I can't help but feel like some of the command groups within the
appservice
module are unnecessarily deep, and could be potentially simplified a little bit.One area that I've noticed being a bit "wordy" is working with deployment slots for a web app. For example, to swap two slots, you need to run the following command:
az appservice web deployment slot swap
, which is quite a mouthful.I can't help but feel like slots are a valuable enough concept that they could be promoted directly underneath the
web
group, which would reduce the extra group level (i.e.deployment
), and allow typingaz appservice web slot swap
, which is quite a bit more ergonomic.Another example of a commonly-used command group, that would potentially be nice to "promote" is
appservice web config appsettings
. I completely appreciate the logical/semantic grouping of commands, but at the same time, in my usage, I feel like having four levels of command group nesting (for commonly-used features), gets a bit tiresome to use. Couldappsettings
also be lifted directly underneathweb
? It feels like that would be helpful, but that could just be me.The storage module is a good example of a command group that could have been nested more deeply than it is (e.g. both
blob
andcontainer
are top-level groups underneathstorage
, as opposed to nesting them underneath a more general group for blob-related commands), and the act of flattening groups a little bit makes the overall experience better.In general, I'd love to see some simplifications of the App service commands, but in particular, it would be great to try to reduce group depth for commonly used commands.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: