Closed JnyJny closed 2 years ago
That is how I had it originally. I also like that workflow. @bbelderbos suggested that the operations be separated or we should rename the function something like download_and_extract
. Is it worth it to create something like a -D
flag that both downloads and extracts, -d
that only downloads, and -e
that only extracts? That way users have granular control over what they are doing?
I have some misgivings about two flags for downloading as it can be tough to remember which flag is which (but --help
exists so it's not a huge problem). Adding flags also increases the complexity of the main
function that has to decide what to do with all these options.
I'm trying to think of a case where I'd want to download a zip file but not extract it. I can think of a reason for not deleting the ZIP archive (restoring the bite if I didn't check in the original files before working on them and I need to start over).
I suspect what @bbelderbos was talking about was the function in eatlocal.py
that download and extracted the bite and not the command line access to those functions.
ok, so starting on line 70 in main.py it would be something like:
if download:
download_bite(download, USERNAME, PASSWORD)
extract_bite(download)
raise typer.Exit()
Then add a feature that would give the option of not deleting the ZIP archive with the extract function? I like less clutter. Maybe a good compromise would be to download the ZIP into a zipped
directory, extract them from there instead. That way there is less clutter but they aren't deleted completely.
Great work guys, exciting project, it's linked now in the offline mode on Bites (premium feature).
Thanks Bob
I would like this kind of workflow:
Where the download operation will both copy down the ZIP archive file and unzip it into the current working directory. It feels clunky to have to download and extract, I might as well call
unzip
directly rather than use the "-e" flag.