Closed sankalp-12 closed 1 year ago
Patch coverage: 88.00
% and project coverage change: +0.46
:tada:
Comparison is base (
15c560d
) 77.73% compared to head (5b080af
) 78.20%.:exclamation: Current head 5b080af differs from pull request most recent head 181f656. Consider uploading reports for the commit 181f656 to get more accurate results
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
You should not replace --print-stats
but mark it as hidden. That way the old flag still works, but it is not shown in in the help output.
@adrianreber Would it be required to have tests with --all
option with invalid/missing *.dump
files?
Also, currently the default output of the --all
option is with shortened paths. The user has an option to use --full-paths
along with --all
. Is this fine?
You should not replace
--print-stats
but mark it as hidden. That way the old flag still works, but it is not shown in in the help output.
So, we mark --print-stats
as hidden and introduce --stats
as a new flag?
You should not replace
--print-stats
but mark it as hidden. That way the old flag still works, but it is not shown in in the help output.So, we mark
--print-stats
as hidden and introduce--stats
as a new flag?
Yes, that would be my recommendation.
@adrianreber Would it be required to have tests with
--all
option with invalid/missing*.dump
files?
Undecided. I would look at the existing code test coverage and decide using that data. If code is covered by tests then no need to introduce new tests. If it is not covered by tests, tests are needed.
Also, currently the default output of the
--all
option is with shortened paths. The user has an option to use--full-paths
along with--all
. Is this fine?
Sounds good.
19 tests +1 19 :heavy_check_mark: +1 0s :stopwatch: ±0s 1 suites ±0 0 :zzz: ±0 1 files ±0 0 :x: ±0
Results for commit 48660941. ± Comparison against base commit 15c560db.
:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.
@adrianreber Shall I add a shorthand for all the options of checkpointctl show
? Currently, only —help
has one.
@adrianreber Shall I add a shorthand for all the options of
checkpointctl show
? Currently, only—help
has one.
No real opinion on this. I would not add it for now. Maybe later.
Looks good, indeed.
Happy to see so good test coverage. Nice.
This pull request adds an alias for the
--print-stats
option, to be changed to--stats
to maintain consistency among option names ofcheckpointctl show
.Also, an
-all
option is added to display all additional information about the available checkpoints, which would extend the out to look like: