Closed nip3o closed 1 month ago
This makes sense, I think the most straightforward implementation might be an --include
flag which takes multiple module paths. Accepting filesystem paths like tach report
might be a bit less intuitive as a user, since the resulting graph wouldn't necessarily have a node that corresponds to the path (if it contains multiple modules defined in tach.toml
for example). Would that work for you?
tach show --web -i tach.core -i tach.errors
-- OR --
tach show --web --include tach.core,tach.errors
Yes, I think that makes sense!
@nip3o I ended up going with an interface much more similar to tach report
, like you initially described. Let me know if it works as expected!
For large projects with loads of cross-dependencies, the dependency graph generated with
tach show
might be too large and complicated to be readable. It would be useful to filter the graph to only include certain modules in the same way as you can do withtach report
.