-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow for 'dry running' commands #38
Comments
Absolutely, I think this is a good suggestion. With the previous version, which had a git diff preview, many people asked about turning it off. I think it would be good to re-add this feature, but perhaps as opt-in this time? WDYT? |
I think I would prefer an 'end to end' dry run, rather than the step-by-step 'dry run and confirm' workflow of the previous version. This could be personal preference though, so perhaps we start there (the presence of some envar, off by default, that asks for confirmation when 'write' changes happen) and iterate upon that, re-using the functionality? |
Sure, I guess it's pretty doable to collate that and emit it at the end. I'd definitely suggest doing this as a flag (like Maybe the thing that I was thinking of (and which the bash version did) would be better described as a |
Since this was created, #94 has come up which we think offers an alternative approach to this problem that is simpler to implement. As such, we'd like to move to close this. |
Before committing to a change (pun absolutely intended), it is sometimes useful to validate that the changes that were made actually came out sensibly in practise.
I would like to see a configuration/environment option to commands like turbolift commit and turbolift create-prs (i.e. any write-like commands) to run them in a dry run mode. For example, the dry run commit could be a report of each git diff, and for create-prs it might be a summary of the git diff against the latest default branch.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: