Blueprint deprecation warning cmd

[georgeliao]

https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/MULTI-1882

This PR introduces blueprint deprecation warnings to relevant commands, specifically multipass find and multipass launch.

For multipass find, the column header in the output table has been changed from "Blueprint" to "Blueprint (deprecated)" to reflect the deprecation status.

For multipass launch, the daemon determines whether the launch target is an image or a blueprint via an internal check. With that information, the code immediately send the first reply with the warning message ahead of the original reply stream. This enables the warning message shows up at the very beginning of the launch process.

The functional testing should cover at least the cases below:

1. multipass launch a image does not show the warning message.
2. multipass launch a blueprint shows the warning message.
3. multipass find commands that involve blueprint (multipass find, multipass find --only-blueprints) show the blueprints (deprecated) label in all supported output formats, including table, ymal, josn, and csv.

[ricab]

Do we really need to go to all this trouble? Wouldn't a simple reply.set_log_line(warning_str); work in daemon::create_vm?

[ricab]

See

multipass/src/daemon/daemon.cpp

Lines 987 to 989 in 6575e2c

	W reply{};
	reply.set_log_line(deprecation_warning);
	server.Write(reply);

[georgeliao]

I think your approach is better. For some reason, I was under the impression that this is cmd only so the warning should be appended by the cmd client. That is why we have this protobuf message. However, that is not the case because one: the gui did not have the blueprint, two: even though it has, it should include the warning as well. So all in all, adding the warning message in the daemon is fine.

Second thing is at which reply message should we add the warning, I think yours which is just adding a new reply ahead of the original reply stream is simpler. The current implementation that made the first reply of original reply stream prepended with the warning is more cumbersome.

[townsend2010]

RIP Blueprints 🙁

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.30769% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 89.53%. Comparing base (7cb6b2b) to head (4a0f004).
Report is 3491 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/daemon/daemon.cpp	85.71%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3988      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.34%   89.53%   +0.19%     
==========================================
  Files         260      260              
  Lines       14738    14749      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        13167    13205      +38     
+ Misses       1571     1544      -27     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[georgeliao]

The link is not working now but it should be working after the merge of the corresponding doc PR.

[georgeliao]

@ricab @sharder996 I separated the doc part to another PR. So this PR is almost ready to merge. Since the last review, the only change is the last commit which is a change of the doc link. Can you guys quickly review that so we can get this merged as soon as possible? Thanks.

[georgeliao]

@ricab @sharder996 , Can you guys quickly review the last commit so we can get this merged as soon as possible? Thanks.

[ricab]

Thanks Jia, this is what we need. Just a minor suggestion inline.

[ricab]

Alright, LGTM!

[sharder996]

@georgeliao This might be failing because of the disk space issue @ricab mentioned.

[georgeliao]

@sharder996 I followed that loosely. Is it an issue on the "One Repo To Rule Them All" PR? Besides, the merge failure occurs across different machines (linux, macos, windows). Therefore, it is hard to link these two together. I will try a few times more and see what happens.