feat(cli): use project name from package json by default

[abdallahmz]

What does it do?

When prompting the user for the name of the project during the deployment process, the setDefaultName function sets the default project name to the name of the existing Strapi project (retrieved from package.json), instead of using a generic default name like "my-strapi-project".

• Also added unit testing config to the cli/cloud package.
  To run: yarn test:unit from the cloud folder.

Why is it needed?

This change is needed to improve the user experience during the deployment process

How to test it?

• you need to have Strapi Cloud services running locally (main server + cli-api)
• run yarn build in the strapi/strapi folder containing this code's repository
• create a new strapi CMS project
• from the strapi CMS project: call the built strapi.js command to run the login command
• Then, use the deploy command:
  When asked for the name of the project, check that the default value is the name of your existing project (as specified in package.json), not "my-strapi-project".

Result:

Related issue(s)/PR(s)

Let us know if this is related to any issue/pull request

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
contributor-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jun 24, 2024 8:02am

[nathan-pichon]

Can you avoid mutating parameters, please?
I believe we want to go towards functional programming and pure functions. 👍

[abdallahmz]

Nice thought, function updated!

[nathan-pichon]

Do we really need to create a fresh object?

Suggested change

	return { ...question };
	return question;

If the point was to copy the object to not keep the reference, then you might want to do a deepClone instead of destructuring. 🤔

[abdallahmz]

Went for the JSON parse/stringify to do the copy, although it'll only work with simple objects/array (The initial code would've at least kept the functions if they were added to the question)

The only solution without any "effective" drawback would be to add a proper class or factory to instantiate the "question" and "default values" objects and use that instead. You think it's worth refactoring now?

[nathan-pichon]

I think you didn't responded to my first question 😄

But in any case, if we really want to copy, we can use https://lodash.com/docs/4.17.15#cloneDeep

[abdallahmz]

Indeed, I want to avoid having the same references. Initial code works for the current code since we only have scalar values so far.
Using cloneDeep now, should be better!