Skip to content
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 specifying commands as flags #44

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 11, 2015
Merged

Allow specifying commands as flags #44

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 11, 2015

Conversation

Tonkpils
Copy link
Owner

Let's discuss a couple of things on this PR.

Right now, it's either one or the other flags or snag file.

The issue comes when the snag file exists and flags are given. If command flags are specified the snag file won't be read. This can come off as a surprise to the user and we need to also think about adding ignores. What if the user has ignored files in the snag file but specifies commands as flags?

@zabawaba99
Copy link
Collaborator

I'd take a naive approach to this issue. Ideally, we want to strive for a user to consume snag with a .snag.yaml. I see using the commands as a quick way to get some validation on some code or using it for some automated task.

I'd say if you specify the flags, you can not ignore any files in the directory and the .snag.yml will be ignored. We can document the exposed flags and put that in bold in the readme.

@Tonkpils Tonkpils force-pushed the commander branch 3 times, most recently from c7ea07c to b58ac26 Compare October 11, 2015 17:51
@zabawaba99
Copy link
Collaborator

:shipit:

zabawaba99 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2015
Allow specifying commands as flags
@zabawaba99 zabawaba99 merged commit 7b0de42 into master Oct 11, 2015
@zabawaba99 zabawaba99 deleted the commander branch October 11, 2015 18:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants