-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor: make all run options have shorthand vars #441
refactor: make all run options have shorthand vars #441
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for witness-project ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
a23868a
to
5e96483
Compare
fyi forced pushed the rebase converting ts var to u (forgot to change that before pushing original 😅 ), so docgen step would need to be rerun. |
options/run.go
Outdated
cmd.Flags().BoolVar(&ro.Tracing, "trace", false, "Enable tracing for the command") | ||
cmd.Flags().StringSliceVar(&ro.TimestampServers, "timestamp-servers", []string{}, "Timestamp Authority Servers to use when signing envelope") | ||
cmd.Flags().BoolVarP(&ro.Tracing, "trace", "t", false, "Enable tracing for the command") | ||
cmd.Flags().StringSliceVarP(&ro.TimestampServers, "timestamp-servers", "u", []string{}, "Timestamp Authority Servers to use when signing envelope") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not a huge fan with u
as the short-hand for TSA but, t
is the only thing that makes sense for tracing... 😅. @ChaosInTheCRD or @mikhailswift either of you have a good suggestion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Completely agree @jkjell. I wasn't sure what else to use tbh, because as you noted t
was already used aptly for tracing, as is s
for StepName.
Maybe a
for Authority?
Let me know what y'all think. I can also understand if y'all believe some of these actually should not have single shorthand letter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey y'all 👋 . Sorry to bother y'all, but any update on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For some reason, there's an issue with Cobra for these changes... 🤔
panic: unable to redefine 'h' shorthand in "run" flagset: it's already used for "hashes" flag
☝️ is in the e2e test and docs GHA workflows for some reason.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm let me take a look, sorry
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ahh yea I think the issue is can't overwrite help shorthand -h. Doh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
with regards to timestamp servers and tracing, may be better with r
and t
respectively, but that's just my personal preference.
I'm starting to think, this PR can probably get trashed, probably overkill tbh and I got ahead of myself?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hey @jkjell, did you see my previous comment. Do you think I should close this PR, or do you think it would still be beneficial to have some of the run options have a shorthand variable? I think we can scrap trying to force all run options to have a shorthand variable, but I think it would be beneficial to have hashes have a shorthand variable. What do you think? I'm also happy to close this PR and open an issue to discuss there if needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's go with r
and t
. 👍 I thought about recommending d
for hashes but, then I figured we'd get a lot of grief for not understanding the difference between hashing algorithms vs their resulting digest. 😂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hey @jkjell FYI just pushed my updates.
ba87f5b
to
faa1678
Compare
faa1678
to
a99af04
Compare
a99af04
to
7ce1ee0
Compare
7ce1ee0
to
e411dac
Compare
7854342
to
1b569e7
Compare
Simple nitpick refactor to have all run option flags (except hashes since there isn't really a good shorthand right now, given h is used for help, and it would be a good idea to be explicit for≠ hashes) have shorthand vars. Signed-off-by: David Dansby <39511285+DataDavD@users.noreply.github.com>
1b569e7
to
fcdc2f4
Compare
@jkjell thank you!!!! |
Refactor: Simple nitpick refactor to have all run option flags have shorthand vars.
Description
I was looking at my old PR that added hashes as run options flags and realized it and others did not have shorthand vars like the majority of the run options flags. So, I threw this nit PR up just in case y'all believe its best to align and have all run options flags have shorthand vars.
Feel free to close PR if you don't agree.