Skip to content
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

Reset storage button confusion #616

Closed
kstroobants opened this issue Nov 18, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #648
Closed

Reset storage button confusion #616

kstroobants opened this issue Nov 18, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #648
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@kstroobants
Copy link
Contributor

Reset storage button in settings only restores the example contracts but not the ones made by the user.

  • Do we want the same functionality for the user generated intelligent contracts?
  • Does it resets the browser cache?
  • The button does not reset the database for listed contracts. Why not?

"All the examples will be restored" vs "following intelligent contracts will be removed". After pressing the button the contract files are still there.

Screenshot 2024-11-18 at 21 29 28

@denishacquin
Copy link
Contributor

IMO We should wipe out everything that is stored locally on the client (transactions, all contract files, deployment snapshots)

@denishacquin
Copy link
Contributor

Comments from edgars and cristiam:
Yes, clear out everything, it should give you a clean slate - it helps in case something gets messed up in the storage, which can happen during many breaking changes
ok, lets reset everything but please
lets be sure that the message is clear and suggest a backup of the contracts they don't want to loose

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2024

🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 0.25.0 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants