consider an alternative to "N/A" in rover subgraph list

[abernix]

Description

Perhaps rather than showing that the Routing Url is "N/A" (Not available), which makes it sound like it's not available (for some transient reason), we should state that it's "Unspecified" or "Not defined"? Happy to open a PR!

rover/src/command/output.rs

Line 68 in 9110438

let url = subgraph.url.clone().unwrap_or_else(|| "N/A".to_string());

[EverlastingBugstopper]

i like the "unroutable" that you mentioned in slack, but unspecified also works here

[lrlna]

Unroutable makes me think that something is wrong with my subgraph and its routing. I do like unspecified though!

[JakeDawkins]

+1 for unspecified

[EverlastingBugstopper]

Unroutable makes me think that something is wrong with my subgraph and its routing. I do like unspecified though!

This is true though, correct? If your URL is an empty string, we're pretty sure that the graph router will not be able to route any requests at all to that subgraph. Even though it's a technically allowed state, that subgraph truly is unroutable.

I'm still OK with unspecified here but want to make sure I'm on the same page about what this state actually means for folks.

[abernix]

I think @EverlastingBugstopper's take is right, but I suppose there are cases (e.g., a mocked graph? Perhaps something in Workbench?) where Un-routable is too heavy/scary and unspecified is better?

Curious what @ndintenfass thinks here.

[EverlastingBugstopper]

decision: unspecified

[abernix]

Okay, unspecified.