Closed cubranic closed 5 years ago
OK, this is cleaned up, rebased on master, and ready for review. Note that only 35862104f29212c50dc92f0268e1ac7a9b7a7388 is a new commit, it looks like Github's UI got confused about which commits are part of this branch, probably after my rebases and force-pushes.
I agree and meant to ask about that as part of the review. I didn't use "register" because the comments seem to use "register" for adding ArchiveFileCopy, whereas this would register new acqs and ArchiveFile instances.
If that's not a problem, I do like "register-new". Should it also have a short name or as a somewhat unusual case require using the long one?
Register new seems good. Ideally a short name too, but the obvious candidates -r
and -n
typically have other meanings (i.e. recursive, and dry-run), so maybe don't bother.
It could be a capital letter, so "-N" would be safe.
Incidentally, the short name for --dry
in its only use in our code is "-d", while as you say "-n" is the usual one. (We also use "-n" for "--now" in "clean" and "--nice" in "sync", but maybe it's not a big deal as they're distinct commands.)
I'm going to merge with just the "register-new", and then close this PR. We can review the short names across all the sub-commands for consistency and open a separate PR for whatever needs renaming or adding.
This allows us to import files on a field node without having to run the daemon, or if we want to be selective about which directories to import.