autocpufreq --version requires sudo now?

[niksingh710]

any command with autocpu-freq requires sudo?

[rootCircle]

Looks like a bug from my previous PR #524 . Searching through the code, I got to know that the set_override function is always called irrespective of the force flag is called or not. Check this.

A fix may be either :

1. To call set_override only when force has some value(non-null). Because, calling it for None values increases extra overhead with no added benefits associated with it.
2. To prematurely return in set_override function, if override value is None or illegal.

I will try working on the issue and make an appropriate PR ASAP :-)

Till then you can just add an extra (tab) indent on this line. (calling set_override only if force is not None)

[niksingh710]

Looks like a bug from my previous PR #524 . Searching through the code, I got to know that the set_override function is always called irrespective of the force flag is called or not. Check this.

A fix may be either :

1. To call `set_override` only when force has some value(non-null). Because, calling it for None values increases extra overhead with no added benefits associated with it.

2. To prematurely return in `set_override` [function](https://github.com/AdnanHodzic/auto-cpufreq/blob/486a9a6dc21b742e1a85db681ac1368a5ef59912/auto_cpufreq/core.py#L98), if `override` value is None or illegal.

I will try working on the issue and make an appropriate PR ASAP :-)

Till then you can just add an extra (tab) indent on this line. (calling set_override only if force is not None)

Premature return will be the preferred option imo as then it will depend on the set_override to handle the values and the core logic have to just call it instead of going over all the checks. Kinda will keep it clean.

More over a check for non-null will also work but not that much what I would like to see.

Btw if you do fix it and create a pr tag me as rn have added sudo's in all of my scripts will refactor them.

@AdnanHodzic opinion will matter more over it I guess.

[rootCircle]

Premature return will be the preferred option imo as then it will depend on the set_override to handle the values and the core logic have to just call it instead of going over all the checks. Kinda will keep it clean.

I guess it might be a better design, but at cost of an extra function call. But going through the codes and patterns, they preferred to include root_check in the main file, and not with the associated function. (eg: remove_daemon etc)

Due, to this I preferred going with 1st approach with a bit of modifications

@AdnanHodzic opinion will matter more over it I guess.

It certainly would, I had created an PR and will see what he had to comment on this.