@thedavidprice So! moving here :)

About testing I'm using the following command:
yarn rwt copy:watch /Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/upstream

which persistently pops me a :

 /Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/.bin/rw g
internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:965
  throw err;
  ^

Error: Cannot find module 'lodash-decorators'
Require stack:
- /Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/structure/dist/x/decorators.js
- /Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/structure/dist/hosts.js
- /Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/structure/dist/index.js
- /Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/cli/dist/commands/check.js
- /Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/yargs/index.js
- /Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/cli/dist/index.js
    at Function.Module._resolveFilename (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:962:15)
    at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:838:27)
    at Module.require (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:1022:19)
    at require (internal/modules/cjs/helpers.js:72:18)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/structure/dist/x/decorators.js:32:25)
    at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:1118:30)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:1138:10)
    at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:982:32)
    at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:875:14)
    at Module.require (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:1022:19) {
  code: 'MODULE_NOT_FOUND',
  requireStack: [
    '/Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/structure/dist/x/decorators.js',
    '/Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/structure/dist/hosts.js',
    '/Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/structure/dist/index.js',
    '/Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/cli/dist/commands/check.js',
    '/Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/yargs/index.js',
    '/Workspace/Code/RedwoodjsForks/web/node_modules/@redwoodjs/cli/dist/index.js'
  ]
}
error Command failed with exit code 1.
info Visit https://yarnpkg.com/en/docs/cli/run for documentation about this command.

Whichever command I call.

I tried the straightforward build & copy which yields more results but equal satisfaction: my new commands are detected and supposedly launched but as soon as they refer to template files it crashed. I then realize that the related directories went from present & working to missing in action.

Bummer.
For the record this is not new to v0.18.0, it has always been this way for my contributions :-\

Yesssss 🚀

Looping in @jtoar (YargsMaster™) and @peterp (TheMaster™)

Will be digging into this very soon.

@noire-munich Thanks for this - In the future I would would love to figure out a way to make it easy to run setup commands over http (which was mentioned in the original spec), maybe you can give that some thoughts?

yarn redwood setup http://github.com/peterp/docker-tool/docker-tool.json

This docker-tool.json file would need to describe the following operations:

1. Add packages.
2. Modify files. (replace/ delete/ add)
3. Run other redwood commands.

@peterp no problem :) I played with the idea actually...
I was wondering if it would make sense to limit the commands available, as all commands from redwood would not be relevant?
And maybe provide some typescript to guide developers through editing remote setup instructions, typescript which could include the set of available commands. Is it something we'd want to do, or save for a later version?

@noire-munich regarding "running setup commands over https" -- looping in @jtoar and @dac09 who have both done some initial POC exploration on this concept. Perhaps one of you could open a new Issue to loop everyone in and swap some notes + create a plan of attack. I don't think this is a high priority feature, however, we're concerned it might require Yargs to be constructed in a specific manner, which we'd like to know sooner than later.

limit the commands available

^^ Hmm, I'm not sure if this would be necessary. At the least, likely something to figure out as we go.

And maybe provide some typescript to guide developers through editing remote setup instructions, typescript which could include the set of available commands. Is it something we'd want to do or save for a later version?

^^ +1 to TS if it makes sense in the implementation.

Hi @thedavidprice !
Sorry, I'm a bit off the radar lately :)
I created #1323 per your suggestion and the idea of splitting the command to accept options is indeed something we should figure out early on.

Noted for the two other points :), let's see how it goes with the #1323 team!