refactor: ensure the UX for new contracts is consistent with the parachains.

[AlexD10S]

Ensure the UX for new contracts is consistent with the parachains. Remove the --path flag for contracts to match the behavior of parachains. Restructure the user guidance for generating a new contract to follow the same order as parachains: 1. template to use 2. name (path) of the project.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 78.12500% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 70.84%. Comparing base (ac0ce23) to head (66729b0).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #232      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.78%   70.84%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          47       47              
  Lines        7445     7443       -2     
  Branches     7445     7443       -2     
==========================================
+ Hits         5270     5273       +3     
+ Misses       1289     1284       -5     
  Partials      886      886              

Files	Coverage Δ
crates/pop-common/src/helpers.rs	81.57% <100.00%> (+9.57%)	⬆️
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/new/contract.rs	48.99% <63.15%> (-1.01%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[brunopgalvao]

When I run cargo run new contract and select ERC20, for some reason it hangs on:

┌   Pop CLI : Generating "duck" using Erc20!
│
◓  Generating contract...   

[AlexD10S]

When I run cargo run new contract and select ERC20, for some reason it hangs on:

┌   Pop CLI : Generating "duck" using Erc20!
│
◓  Generating contract...   

Hmmm It works for me. What is doing is cloning the ERC20 from https://github.com/use-ink/ink-examples/tree/main/erc20
Is possible your internet connection is poor?

[evilrobot-01]

Do we need to clone it? We have logic for downloading source code archives from GitHub, which is much faster, especially as we don't need the commit history for the created contract?

Perhaps the sourcing module should be moved from parachains to common?

[evilrobot-01]

A few improvements still required.

[AlexD10S]

Do we need to clone it? We have logic for downloading source code archives from GitHub, which is much faster, especially as we don't need the commit history for the created contract?

Perhaps the sourcing module should be moved from parachains to common?

This is out of scope for this PR.
I agree that it's an improvement to make. I'm working on it in a different PR: #239.

[AlexD10S]

When I run cargo run new contract and select ERC20, for some reason it hangs on:

┌   Pop CLI : Generating "duck" using Erc20!
│
◓  Generating contract...   

Can you try this PR: #239 to see if you still experience this issue?

[brunopgalvao]

Same issue for me. This is also happening on main for me as well.

[brunopgalvao]

When I run cargo run new contract and select ERC20, for some reason it hangs on:

┌   Pop CLI : Generating "duck" using Erc20!
│
◓  Generating contract...   

This is now working for me. I believe it was an internet issue. I will continue to monitor this in case it happens again and discover the source of the issue.

[AlexD10S]

As Frank suggested in a comment above, downloading source code archives from GitHub is much faster than cloning the repository. I have initiated this improvement in another PR: : #239 However, it will require more time for a proper refactor of sourcing logic.

If you encounter the error again, please debug to gather more information to replicate it accurately.

[evilrobot-01]

Note that this is missing the audit warning that we have in the parachains ux, which should be added as a separate PR.