Ensure consistent terminology of Deploy/Upload/Instantiate

[cmichi]

The ink! code base uses this terminology:

• "Deploy Wasm binary"
• "Instantiate a deployed Wasm binary"

The Canvas UI uses this terminology:

• "Upload Wasm binary"
• "Deploy an uploaded Wasm binary"

We should have a consistent terminology across projects.

ToDo

• [x] Discuss which terminology we want to use
• [ ] Ensure the terminology is consistent across
  • • [x] ink!
  • • [ ] Canvas UI
  • • [x] cargo-contract
  • • [ ] ink-docs
  • • [ ] Guided Beginners Tutorial

[kwingram25]

Happy to go along with whatever is in ink! and it seems more accurate to what is actually being done in each step

[athei]

I would avoid the word "deploy" all-together as I think it is ambiguous:

• "Upload Wasm binary"
• "Instantiate an uploaded Wasm binary"

Upload and instantiate will no longer be separate steps with the upcoming v3 of pallet_contracts. There will be only:

• instantiate
• instantiate_with_code

[cmichi]

To persist what we decided on:

• It's confusing to users that we use different terms synonymously.
• We no longer want to use the terms deploy/initialize for instantiating a contract on-chain, instead we want to use one term consistently which is instantiate. The RPC is also named instantiate_*.
• There is one legacy mention of deploy, which is the contracts pallet API surface that requires a function deploy to be exposed. We decided on leaving that as is, since it would be a huge hassle to change the name there.
• We still refer to a contract being "uploaded" to a chain, when its Wasm code blob is put on-chain.

[SkymanOne]

The issue seems to be fixed. cargo-contracts uses terms instantiate for code upload and instantiation and uplaod for code upload. use.ink is also consistent with terminology