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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

feat: improve errors on command execution #36

Closed
fadeev opened this issue Jul 17, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

feat: improve errors on command execution #36

fadeev opened this issue Jul 17, 2020 · 6 comments
Labels
pr:need-review Change request requires peer review. type:new To implement new feature.

Comments

@fadeev
Copy link
Contributor

fadeev commented Jul 17, 2020 •
edited by sync-by-unito bot
Loading

Would be ideal, if starport app, starport app blog, starport app tendermint/blog, starport app github.com/tendermint/blog were all valid command invocations.

The first three will prompt the user for additional information.

$ starport app
Application name:

$ starport app
Application name: blog
Org or username:

$ starport app
Application name: blog
Org or username:

$ starport app
Application name: blog
Org or username: tendermint
Domain (default: github.com):
@ilgooz ilgooz added the type:new To implement new feature. label Jul 20, 2020
@snyk-bot snyk-bot mentioned this issue Jan 7, 2021
Open
@fadeev fadeev changed the title Calling starport app without arguments Improve errors on command execution Apr 9, 2021
@fadeev
Copy link
Contributor Author

fadeev commented Apr 9, 2021

I don't think commonly used commands should enter in this prompt-mode, but we can definitely improve errors on command execution.

fadeev@system ~ % starport app

accepts 1 arg(s), received 0

This should display a helpful description of what the command expects to receive as arguments.

@fadeev fadeev changed the title Improve errors on command execution feat: improve errors on command execution Apr 9, 2021
@fadeev fadeev added this to the v0.17 milestone Jun 8, 2021
@fadeev
Copy link
Contributor Author

fadeev commented Jul 2, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Let's print help on command error. It's a bit noisy but helps in discoverability.

@fadeev fadeev removed this from the v0.17 milestone Jul 6, 2021
This was referenced Sep 5, 2021
Open
Open
This was referenced Jan 12, 2022
Open
Open
@gitcoinbot
Copy link

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

This issue now has a funding of 5.0 USD (5.0 USD @ $1.0/USD) attached to it.

@gitcoinbot
Copy link

gitcoinbot commented Feb 8, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

Work has been started.

These users each claimed they can complete the work by 264 years, 9 months from now.
Please review their action plans below:

1) ilgooz has been approved to start work.

testtesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttest

Learn more on the Gitcoin Issue Details page.

@gitcoinbot
Copy link

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

Work for 5.0 USD (5.0 USD @ $1.0/USD) has been submitted by:

  1. @ilgooz

@ilgooztest please take a look at the submitted work:

This was referenced Feb 9, 2022
Open
Open
@aljo242 aljo242 added the pr:need-review Change request requires peer review. label Nov 1, 2022
@aljo242
Copy link
Contributor

aljo242 commented Nov 1, 2022

Closing due to lack of relevance

@aljo242 aljo242 closed this as completed Nov 1, 2022
@Qdigital Qdigital mentioned this issue Aug 29, 2023
Open
@vutting4221 vutting4221 mentioned this issue Jan 2, 2024
Open
@vutting4221 vutting4221 mentioned this issue Mar 17, 2024
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
pr:need-review Change request requires peer review. type:new To implement new feature.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@fadeev @ilgooz @gitcoinbot @aljo242 and others