[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17017?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17423962#comment-17423962
]
Josh McKenzie commented on CASSANDRA-17017:
-------------------------------------------
{quote}A comment is easier to overlook than a failing CI
{quote}
Given the trend with our CI pass/fail rates, I think this is debatable. :)
Adding a unit test just to ensure that a command has the text it has when you
originally wrote it strikes me as redundant calcification and a DRY violation.
It's trivial to add it and if you're a hard no w/out it I definitely will, but
this would only really make sense to me as a defensive move to protect against
bad actors.
If someone goes in and removes / modifies code and _ignores the comment
literally adjacent to it as to why it's there and necessary_, we have biggerÂ
_cultural_ and skills problems that I don't think a failing unit test will fix.
> Add required -f / --force option to nodetool verify
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-17017
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17017
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Tool/nodetool
> Reporter: Josh McKenzie
> Assignee: Josh McKenzie
> Priority: Normal
>
> nodetool verify has some pretty significant problems with it (see
> CASSANDRA-9947).
> Until such time as we do the heavy(er) lift to fix the command, we should
> make it harder for people to shoot themselves in the foot with it. Adding a
> required "-f" flag to it with a requisite "Do you really know what you're
> doing? Check out this JIRA first" seems like it'd be the right thing to do in
> the interim.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
