Skip to content

Misleading README instructions about using caches #424

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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
ilyamerman opened this issue Nov 3, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #471
Closed

Misleading README instructions about using caches #424

ilyamerman opened this issue Nov 3, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #471
Labels
good first PR A good issue for new contributors to tackle

Comments

@ilyamerman
Copy link

Current README file (last updated at July 31st) says:

You can enable two kinds of caching with this plugin which are currently both DISABLED by default

index.js file (last updated at Aug 7th) reads:

useStaticCache: true,
useDownloadCache: true,

Caused us some confusion when trying to require the same package that has been updated since we thought that caching was disabled by default, we believe more people might run into this in the future and updating the README file will greatly help.

Thanks 🙏

@bsamuel-ui bsamuel-ui added the good first PR A good issue for new contributors to tackle label Feb 18, 2020
miketheman added a commit to miketheman/serverless-python-requirements that referenced this issue Feb 22, 2020
Using MarkdownLint in VSCode, this file was showing many linter errors,
mostly around whitespace issues, but a few others that made it annoying
enough when looking at the file, it was inconsistent and difficult to
read.

Also handles a few existing notes about caching.

Refs serverless#412
Resolves serverless#420
Resolves serverless#424

Signed-off-by: Mike Fiedler <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first PR A good issue for new contributors to tackle
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants