[GitHub] [accumulo] jmark99 opened a new issue #1776: Check for consistency of shell commands that operate on a table.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

jmark99 opened a new issue #1776:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/1776


   There have been recent updates to several shell commands that operate on tables for the purpose of adding the <code>--table/-t</code> option. This option allows a specified table to be the target of the command. This can be useful in situations where the shell command is not be within a table context or if the command needs to operate on a table other than the current table context. It is also especially helpful if using shell commands within a script where it is not possible to provide a table context.
   
   It was suggested that all shell commands that operate on tables should be reviewed and the <code>table/t</code> options be added, if missing, thereby making all table-related shell commands consistent.
   


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [accumulo] ctubbsii closed issue #1776: Check for consistency of shell commands that operate on a table.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

ctubbsii closed issue #1776:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/1776


   


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [accumulo] EdColeman commented on issue #1776: Check for consistency of shell commands that operate on a table.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

EdColeman commented on issue #1776:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/1776#issuecomment-731240094


   Mark, thanks for picking this up - when scripting, needed to switch into a table before being able to run a command was a pain point.  
   
   As for then it comes to requiring or having -t as an option on the remaining six - my inclination is to always have -t available so the commands take consistent input rather than needing to remember that those six are outliers.  However, there are two that stand out - clonetable and renametable - they take two table names so if only -t was added it could leave confusion unless there was -t (source?) and -n (destination) or something. Without two switches, what table is specified by -t (I'd assume the source, but...)
   
   With these six, the intent is clear that they require a table name, so its fine either way - just wanted to weigh my preference is for consistency over brevity when possible.  For me, the extra typing required if -t was always required is less mental effort than needing to remember when -t not available.
   


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [accumulo] jmark99 commented on issue #1776: Check for consistency of shell commands that operate on a table.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

jmark99 commented on issue #1776:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/1776#issuecomment-731251336


   I tend to side with the consistency argument that you present. Granted, with the commands that do not have the option, it is pretty clear that a table name is required. So I can go either way. @ctubbsii commented on the PR with his preference if you would like to take a look. You are correct that the clonetable and renametable would have to be handled slightly differently. Perhaps a few others can weigh in before we decide if we should proceed with additional work. As @ctubbsii pointed out, it could be confusing to have commands that can work without the option as well as taking the option. But it is not unprecedented as eight of the commands already do that.


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [accumulo] ctubbsii commented on issue #1776: Check for consistency of shell commands that operate on a table.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

ctubbsii commented on issue #1776:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/1776#issuecomment-731479435


   The main concern with adding the option when it's already a required argument is confusion. A user might not know which to specify. They might specify both. What if the user specified both and they were different?! We'd have to add unnecessary complexity to report errors in those cases that we can avoid by limiting it to just the existing required arguments in those cases. I also prefer consistency, but another way to adhere to consistency is to be consistent between versions, rather than be consistent between commands. For those commands, since the required argument is already present, and it would add confusion and complexity to handle, I'm inclined to prefer consistency with previous versions. The scripting use case already works for these, so there's little compelling reason to at the option to these, in my opinion. But, if they are added, it can be done in a separate PR.


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org