+1, I like the general idea of refactoring this and the new command suggestions by Kamil look nice and coherent to me.
Szymon Przedwojski Polidea | Software Engineer M: +48 500 330 790 E: szymon.przedwoj...@polidea.com > On 8 Feb 2019, at 11:50, Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> wrote: > > I think that it is worth to group some commands. > > Currently, the user must choose from a large number of commands, which may > not be intuitive for the developer. Grouping several command will make it a > lot more enjoyable. > > airflow resetdb => airflow db reset > airflow initdb => airflow db init > > airflow list_dags => airflow dag list > airflow trigger_dag dag_id => airflow dag trigger dag_id > airflow unpause dag_id => airflow dag unpause dag_id > airflow list_dag_runs dag_id => airflow dag list_runs dag_id > airflow list_tasks dag_id => airflow dag list_tasks dag_id > airflow dag_state dag_id => airflow dag state dag_id > airflow backfill dag_id => airflow dag backfill dag_id > > airflow render dag_id task_id execution_date => airflow ti render dag_id > task_id execution_date > airflow test dag_id task_id execution_date => airflow ti test dag_id > task_id execution_date > airflow task_state => airflow ti state > airflow run => airflow ti run > > And other... > > This way of building CLI UI is common in the industry. For example gcloud ( > https://cloud.google.com/sdk/gcloud/reference/config/ ) > > I think it's worth to prepare AIP to think about building the CLI > interface. We can introduce the proposed change for only some commands.It > is worth adding that another interface - REST, have AIP - > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-13%3A+OpenAPI+3+based+API+definition > > I personally support the introduction of changes, but we can not make > changes and think only about one case. First, let's prepare the whole > interface design, and the next step is to introduce changes. > > Thank you very much for thinking about this issues. > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 6:27 AM jm.c...@gmail.com <jm.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The CLI treats `airflow connection` as a single command, with `--list`, >> `--add`, etc. as flags. This means it's possible to pass options that can't >> be used together: passing `--list` with `--conn_id` should be invalid. The >> current implementation has to handle validation of mutually exclusive >> options separately for each command. I think the code would be simpler and >> easier to use if we used nested commands instead of flags: `airflow >> connections list` and `airflow connections add` would be separate >> subcommands that would take different arguments, and we wouldn't have to >> check for invalid combinations of commands and arguments. >> >> This might overlap with other CLI refactoring, like >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-3358. I'm not sure if that >> conversation is still active, though. >> >> Interested to get feedback about this--maybe there are advantages to using >> flags instead of subcommands that I haven't thought of. >> > > > -- > > Kamil Breguła > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer > > M: +48 505 458 451 <+48505458451> > E: kamil.breg...@polidea.com > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > We create human & business stories through technology. > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> > [image: Github] <https://github.com/Polidea> [image: Facebook] > <https://www.facebook.com/Polidea.Software> [image: Twitter] > <https://twitter.com/polidea> [image: Linkedin] > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/polidea> [image: Instagram] > <https://instagram.com/polidea> [image: Behance] > <https://www.behance.net/polidea>
