Add buf config ls-modules #3081
Conversation
This PR * adds test for `buf config ls-modules` * update the command to error when both `./buf.yaml` and `./buf.work.yaml` exist --------- Co-authored-by: bufdev <bufdev-github@buf.build>
|
@doriable will assume you will review my initial code and handle taking on any other necessary changes, I can't approve my own PR. |
| } | ||
| }() | ||
|
|
||
| require.NoError(t, osext.Chdir(filepath.Join(pwd, "testdata", "lsmodules", "workspacev1"))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It could be handy if buf config ls-modules accepted an optional arg <dir> so you could use it without relying on chdir.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think --config does that, except it doesn't accept a buf.work.yaml
| &f.Config, | ||
| configFlagName, | ||
| "", | ||
| `The buf.yaml file or data to use for configuration.`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The implementation first looks for a buf.work.yaml file then falls back to a buf.yaml file. Do we want the --config argument to accept either a buf.yaml or a buf.work.yaml file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that's a good point:
- by default, the command looks for
./buf.work.yamlor./buf.yaml - but the
--configcurrently only acceptsbuf.yaml
It does feel a bit inconsistent. Do you have thoughts on this? @bufdev @doriable @emcfarlane
Update the module name parsing to use `buf ls-modules` now we have `buf` at v1.34.0 as a requirement. This also fixes an issue for root named modules, which missed a call to `parseModules` causing the module to fail. Added a test to cover the root name case. See bufbuild/buf#3081
Fixes #3035.