We have at present a structure where all node and client data is stored in subdirs at
I am proposing a third subdir “
client as somewhere to store utilities such as graphing and reporting scripts.
OR we could call it
Can you bright folk tell me any reason why not to do this? I just think a little standardisation at this time may help as add-ons will inevitably appear.
I think it would be good to define this directory. Just to complicate things I’d go for ‘tools’ mainly because it’s a bit quicker to type.
the problem being
If you’ve used previous versions of the network before and you find problems when running commands, you may want to consider clearing out previous data (worthless DBCs from previous runs, old logs, old keys, etc.).
rm -rf ~/.local/share/safe
Ask for that to get changed to
rm -rf ~/.local/share/safe/client && rm -rf ~/.local/share/safe/node
You will need to sell that to Chris I think
My view actually is that we should be trying now to avoid having to ask people to clear things out, and I’ve mentioned this before within the team. It was me who requested those instructions to be moved to the ‘troubleshooting’ section, rather than where they were originally proposed to be, which was at the start of the instructions.
When we go fully public with the network, if we do a new release and it requires deleting configuration or data, really, that is a breaking change. We will have to make users aware of breaking changes. However, it also means as a development team, we need to be cognizant of when we are introducing something as breaking, and those commits need to be marked as such.
I think we should get used to doing this now within our small community, just to get into the practice. However, I think most of the rest of the team just prefer rapid development. I personally just think it’s a little lazy of us as a team to expect folk to just clear things out for each new testnet or release, rather than taking a bit more effort to be aware of when we’ve broken something, and informing people accordingly. But I understand the rationale behind just developing rapidly.
Anyway, I would have no problem updating the instructions. Just so long as you don’t use the name ‘add-ons’…
This decision will be made by authors of utilities.
Authors know better where files of their utilities should be stored.
tools is cool by me and also by the hugely representative poll above.