Update get-started.mdx

[codercatdev]

in the bottom how to deploy section it has deploy:worker I think this should match.

[vicb]

@dario-piotrowicz what do you think?
C3 template uses deploy.
We should pick either one, maybe :worker everywhere and we update here, c3, and the adapter repo?

[dario-piotrowicz]

@dario-piotrowicz what do you think? C3 template uses deploy. We should pick either one, maybe :worker everywhere and we update here, c3, and the adapter repo?

@vicb if you look at the c3.ts files for all the various types of projects you will see that all of them use "deploy" (without ":worker" or any other suffix/prefix) and I am a big fan of consistency, so if I had to chose I would go for that, I'm not against deploy:worker anyways if that's your preference

---

PS: Thanks for spotting the issue @codercatdev 🫶

[vicb]

What I mean is consistency can be 2 two things:

1. everything worker related ends with i.e. use preview:worker and deploy:worker to match build:worker and dev:worker
2. or use deploy and preview to be consistent with the c3 template

I updated (some of) the docs in #50 to use deploy and preview to match the template.

But now I'm wondering if we shouldn't got the 1 way (in docs + templates)

[dario-piotrowicz]

What I mean is consistency can be 2 two things:

1. everything worker related ends with i.e. use preview:worker and deploy:worker to match build:worker and dev:worker
2. or use deploy and preview to be consistent with the c3 template

I updated (some of) the docs in #50 to use deploy and preview to match the template.

But now I'm wondering if we shouldn't got the 1 way (in docs + templates)

my preference as I mentioned is to be consistent with the c3 template (2.) and remove the :worker to all the scripts that don't need it (note: the only one from which we can't remove the suffix is build:worker as we can't simply use build)

but again, I'm ok to go with 1. if that's your preference

[vicb]

my preference as I mentioned is to be consistent with the c3 template (2.) and remove the :worker to all the scripts that don't need it (note: the only one from which we can't remove the suffix is build:worker as we can't simply use build)

Ok, let's do that, which means:

• build:worker
• dev:worker
• preview
• deploy

I'll update the adapter to reflect that.

[dario-piotrowicz]

my preference as I mentioned is to be consistent with the c3 template (2.) and remove the :worker to all the scripts that don't need it (note: the only one from which we can't remove the suffix is build:worker as we can't simply use build)

Ok, let's do that, which means:

• build:worker
• dev:worker
• preview
• deploy

I'll update the adapter to reflect that.

why dev:worker and not just dev?

[vicb]

why dev:worker and not just dev?

Because it has been like that since day 1 and probably too similar to next dev

[vicb]

and there is not even a question because pnpm dev is already taken by next dev :)

[dario-piotrowicz]

@vicb sorry, I just realized now that I asked my question wrongly, I was asking why we need have dev:worker in the first place and why not just have dev

and there is not even a question because pnpm dev is already taken by next dev :)

👆 That's exactly what I was saying, there already is a dev script, so having an extra one just for the worker is not 100% necessary

that's exactly what we have in C3, there is no dev:worker and wrangler dev is directly inlined in the preview script: https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-sdk/blob/6abe69c3fe1fb2e762153a3094119ed83038a50b/packages/create-cloudflare/templates-experimental/next/c3.ts#L76

I feel like this is clearer than having dev and dev:worker, but dev:worker might still be useful if someone wants to preview the worker without rebuilding it (maybe the script could be renamed to serve:worker? 🤔)

anyways if you want to keep dev:worker around that's also fine by me 🙂👍

[vicb]

I'm ok to drop dev:worker.
Meaning we can also drop build:worker to keep only preview and deploy, right?

[dario-piotrowicz]

I'm ok to drop dev:worker. Meaning we can also drop build:worker to keep only preview and deploy, right?

oh yeah, I didn't consider dropping build:worker too 🤔

(actually the C3 template already doesn't have that)

sounds good to me 👍

[vicb]

@codercatdev the change was made in #68. You are a co-author of this change as this was suggested by you. Thanks!