-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
馃悰 Bug Report: Cloud Function change creation date after ends to deploy #5883
Comments
@gepd, thanks for creating this issue! 馃檹 The thing is, that 1st row is actually the 2nd deployment. The most recently active deployment is above. |
Ok I think I got it. The problem seems to be, there two rows: one for active and a second one for inactive deployments. When you deploy the function, the deploying funtion is in the inactive row with the status of "building" and then the UI updates the info of the active deployment which cause some confusion as your sight is in the building line, you just see it disappear |
@gepd, yes exactly. Can this be closed now since the behavior is expected? |
I was expecting to have more feedback from other users, I don't know if is only me, but I think it's a little weird to have the building deployment in the inactive row. I now It's inactive, however is can of weird or confusing to be in that position. Maybe would be good to have some indicator (green dot, a tag, etc) to inform the new deployment is in the active section, what do you think? |
I'll let our team know and we'll see if anyone else from the community 馃憤馃徏 this issue. |
Resolving as related issue is fixed as of 1.4. |
馃憻 Reproduction steps
When I deploy a new function, if the previous deploy was long time ago, when it finish to deploy he function, the console change the creation date as the gift shows:
馃憤 Expected behavior
Show the current creation date time
馃憥 Actual Behavior
created date time is old
馃幉 Appwrite version
Version 1.3.x
馃捇 Operating system
Linux
馃П Your Environment
No response
馃憖 Have you spent some time to check if this issue has been raised before?
馃彚 Have you read the Code of Conduct?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: