Conversation
f34894f to
6576f52
Compare
Collaborator
Author
|
@craicoverflow that will be quick review (small command/refactoring here) |
craicoverflow
approved these changes
Jul 6, 2021
Contributor
craicoverflow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest changing the command to dev-preview - all good otherwise
Co-authored-by: Enda <ephelan@redhat.com>
a4e5dc6 to
b64ea9e
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Verification
Approach
In 0b79620 I have used single command approach and 2 arguments - one which is config key second is value.
I think that is overly complex and convoluted.
Current approach uses separate command for each key.
Drawback is for that approach we getting documentation file generated and there is little bit of duplication in docs, but much simpler and easier to work with.
What is outstanding