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. |
| 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.
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.
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.
Hey y'all 👋 . Sorry to bother y'all, but any update on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
hmm let me take a look, sorry
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ahh yea I think the issue is can't overwrite help shorthand -h. Doh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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.
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. 😂
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.