5 ms·

You should switch the default to not delete any files and modify/remove the files only with some flag (--dry-run=false, --rm, --delete, etc). I just deleted all

by zlies 2y ago

You should switch the default to not delete any files and modify/remove the files only with some flag (--dry-run=false, --rm, --delete, etc). I just deleted all files accidentally in a monorepo :D Luckily I didn't had any uncommitted changes and could recover using git

jamil7 2y ago
It's maybe reasonable to change the defaults, but I think you should also be mindful of running any random cli program in your codebase, the top of the Github readme does indicate that the --check mode runs it without deleting files.
- zlies 2y ago
  You're totally right. I just quickly scanned the readme and had expected a tool that only check the files. But yes, it's a bad idea in general to run random cli programs without checking them in detail
  - kazushisan 2y ago
    I’m sorry that it may have been unclear that the tool will make modifications without the check flag. I’m glad you didn’t loose any unstated changes :) I will add a cautionary note to README to make it clear!
  - diggan 2y ago
    > had expected a tool that only check the files Isn't the name kind of a giveaway that it does more than just checking? "ts-remove-unused" is plastered all over the place, and you need to even type/paste the name into your terminal before you can use it.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    Don't people do that all the time? I doubt that even you check everything that you run thoroughly. There's a lot of trust we have put into all those tools.
- richardw 2y ago
  I’d maybe recommend inverting the command so it doesn’t delete by default but only when you add the relevant flag. Far better to add a little rigmarole than deal with a sad person who wiped their code.
  - jamil7 2y ago
    I’m not the author of the tool, I was just chiming in. But yes, inverting it probably makes sense.
    - bmelton 2y ago
      Arguendo, having to type extra characters to enable the functionality that the tool says it will do in its very name seems backwards to me.
      - diggan 2y ago
        Besides, the common behavior is to do what it says on the tin by default, but offer flags to make cli's "simulate" their run with "--dry-run" or similar. I'm not sure I know of any utility that would have the opposite behavior than that.
        cdirkx 2y ago
        The "install -y" pattern is kind of similar. Various tools have as a default that it gives a list of packages that would be installed, and then ask for confirmation.
        senorrib 2y ago
        rm <file> does not ask for any confirmation. Neither do most of the infra tools we use on a daily basis.
        bmelton 2y ago
        `install -y` is a fun analogue to consider here. A "Hey, this is really going to delete files. If you're just playing around here, maybe try it with the --dry-run flag" seems sane and (so long as it's asked for) means less syntax to have to know up front.
filleokus 2y ago
It would be kinda cool to use git status to avoid accidental data loss for tools like this. I've never interacted with git programatically so I don't know how messy it would be to implement. But for tools that mostly operate on "whole files" rather than lines in files, I guess it shouldn't be that tricky?
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  It’d be very easy to programmatically check which files in a repo directory are unknown to git. Git status does indeed have a machine-parseable output mode.
icholy 2y ago
[dead]

by zlies 2y ago

jamil7 2y ago

It's maybe reasonable to change the defaults, but I think you should also be mindful of running any random cli program in your codebase, the top of the Github readme does indicate that the --check mode runs it without deleting files.

zlies 2y ago
You're totally right. I just quickly scanned the readme and had expected a tool that only check the files. But yes, it's a bad idea in general to run random cli programs without checking them in detail
- kazushisan 2y ago
  I’m sorry that it may have been unclear that the tool will make modifications without the check flag. I’m glad you didn’t loose any unstated changes :) I will add a cautionary note to README to make it clear!
- diggan 2y ago
  > had expected a tool that only check the files Isn't the name kind of a giveaway that it does more than just checking? "ts-remove-unused" is plastered all over the place, and you need to even type/paste the name into your terminal before you can use it.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Don't people do that all the time? I doubt that even you check everything that you run thoroughly. There's a lot of trust we have put into all those tools.
richardw 2y ago
I’d maybe recommend inverting the command so it doesn’t delete by default but only when you add the relevant flag. Far better to add a little rigmarole than deal with a sad person who wiped their code.
- jamil7 2y ago
  I’m not the author of the tool, I was just chiming in. But yes, inverting it probably makes sense.
  - bmelton 2y ago
    Arguendo, having to type extra characters to enable the functionality that the tool says it will do in its very name seems backwards to me.
    - diggan 2y ago
      Besides, the common behavior is to do what it says on the tin by default, but offer flags to make cli's "simulate" their run with "--dry-run" or similar. I'm not sure I know of any utility that would have the opposite behavior than that.
      - cdirkx 2y ago
        The "install -y" pattern is kind of similar. Various tools have as a default that it gives a list of packages that would be installed, and then ask for confirmation.
        senorrib 2y ago
        rm <file> does not ask for any confirmation. Neither do most of the infra tools we use on a daily basis.
        bmelton 2y ago
        `install -y` is a fun analogue to consider here. A "Hey, this is really going to delete files. If you're just playing around here, maybe try it with the --dry-run flag" seems sane and (so long as it's asked for) means less syntax to have to know up front.

filleokus 2y ago

It would be kinda cool to use git status to avoid accidental data loss for tools like this. I've never interacted with git programatically so I don't know how messy it would be to implement. But for tools that mostly operate on "whole files" rather than lines in files, I guess it shouldn't be that tricky?

School-Cotton 2y ago
It’d be very easy to programmatically check which files in a repo directory are unknown to git. Git status does indeed have a machine-parseable output mode.

icholy 2y ago

[dead]