Closed pgrzesik closed 2 years ago
Hey @mnapoli - I've started the implementation of this and I'm not sold on the command format here - as of right now, we're supporting two formats for service-specific commands and this conflicts with one of them - it's pretty much equivalent to invoking command refresh
on a service called outputs
. What do you think about supporting outputs refresh
or refresh-outputs
command?
Or maybe first we should make a decision on how we want to support the service-specific commands?
Oh 100% good point, this isn't a sub-command of a service and this could create conflicts.
slsc refresh-outputs
sounds like the safest option as it doesn't force us down the road of using spaces for sub-commands (spaces have the problem of not allowing to distinguish options and arguments, so I think we should try to avoid that ideally).
Introduce
outputs:refresh
command that will allow to repopulate/sync outputs (state) locally