[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17017?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17424299#comment-17424299
]
Berenguer Blasi commented on CASSANDRA-17017:
---------------------------------------------
[~jmckenzie] I left a few nits.
I think you're right in your reasoning but we were jts talking different things
:-) As usual some things are hard to communicate. One note: If we had had an
existing {{testMaybeChangeDocs()}} for {{nodetool verify}} it would have made
you realize, upon failure, to fix the docs for the tool. If I hadn't spotted it
by chance we would have committed this without doc changes. This is where I see
value in that test, also it's just a few loc copy-paste. I understand a full
test to cover {{nodetool verify}} like the one for {{sstableverify}} is not in
the scope for this ticket, but I would suggest to add {{testMaybeChangeDocs()}}
test for {{nodetool verify}}. wdyt makes sense?
> 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]
