cmd: migrate check command to cobra style
#723
Conversation
Elbehery
force-pushed
the
migrate_check_cobra
branch
from
691f8c0 to
77c20d4
Compare
cmd/bbolt/command_check.go
Outdated
| Args: func(cmd *cobra.Command, args []string) error { | ||
| if len(args) == 0 || args[0] == "" { | ||
| return ErrPathRequired | ||
| } | ||
| if len(args) > 1 { | ||
| return ErrTooManyArgs | ||
| } | ||
| return nil |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This may actually be a question for @ahrtr. Is there any particular reason why we're not using https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/spf13/cobra#ExactArgs. I know that the surgery sub-commands do the check this same way. Is it to give more context to the error? i.e., rather than erroring with a wrong number of arguments, saying that the first argument needs to be a path?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's mostly a copy&paste thing :) We totally should use ExactArgs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I agree that ExactArgs can simplify the implementation. It's a generic problem, so it's OK to fix it separately.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it to give more context to the error? i.e., rather than erroring with a wrong number of arguments, saying that the first argument needs to be a path?
Once an error is returned, I think cobra will automatically print the usage, in which all info is included. So it seems that we don't need to provide any extra context.
| "go.etcd.io/bbolt/internal/btesting" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| func TestCheckCommand_Run(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
while we're at it, can you add some test that exercises the corruption?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR just migrates the check command to cobra style. This comment is an enhancement request. It's OK to discuss it separately.
I think the purpose of CLI's test cases are just to verify the CLI itself instead of the functionalities. Also we already some test cases to verify the corrupted pages. FYI. https://github.com/etcd-io/bbolt/blob/main/tx_check_test.go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes the corruption check has been test already, this test case just to verify the cli is working as expected 👍🏽
There was a problem hiding this comment.
well, part of testing that CLI is also ensuring this case works. Feel free to do it as a follow-up PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i am confused now, so is this
This comment is an enhancement request
or just adding new test for the corruption check, because we already have tests for this https://github.com/etcd-io/bbolt/blob/main/tx_check_test.go
just to make sure we are all on the same page
Elbehery
force-pushed
the
migrate_check_cobra
branch
from
77c20d4 to
adfd9fd
Compare
Elbehery
force-pushed
the
migrate_check_cobra
branch
from
adfd9fd to
c5618e4
Compare
|
@ahrtr rebased and use |
Elbehery
force-pushed
the
migrate_check_cobra
branch
from
c5618e4 to
10a2556
Compare
Signed-off-by: Mustafa Elbehery <melbeher@redhat.com>
Elbehery
force-pushed
the
migrate_check_cobra
branch
from
10a2556 to
e3afa40
Compare
Follow up to #698 (comment)
Linked to #580 && #472
cc @ahrtr @ivanvc @jmhbnz