Add help to compile; make it visible in CLI help #76
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #76 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 110 110
Lines 5416 5416
=========================================
Hits 5416 5416 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
dwhswenson
changed the title
|
Changed my mind. We have a circular dependency here:
So I think the solution is:
This is ready for review and comment. Without review, I will merge this after at least 18 hours, no sooner than Sun 05 May 23:00 GMT (18:00 my local). |
sroet
left a comment
sroet
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
EDIT: To clarify here, I have made the decision that the Wizard, while a lot of fun, isn't mature enough or well-designed enough to be something I want to commit to maintaining. It also isn't an approach that we should put much effort into expanding/maturing (there are better ways to be user friendly.) It was originally a bit of a response to people who kept saying that OPS was too hard to use because it required working in a Jupyter notebook. Frankly, I think there are better solutions to make that response.
However, I totally intend to leave it in as an easter egg for anyone who finds it, because I find it hilarious. Especially the error demon.
This is fine by me :)
So I think the solution is:
- Finish the release of CLI 0.3
- Merge a docs update into OPS
- Push a small change to docs here to link to the OPS docs on the CLI.
This looks like a reasonable plan
2 participants
I'm going to leave the wizard hidden for the 0.3 release, but compile is one of the marquee features for this release.
To-do:
Needs to link to the page in core docs that discusses default options and how to generate documentation for all installed options.EDIT: To clarify here, I have made the decision that the Wizard, while a lot of fun, isn't mature enough or well-designed enough to be something I want to commit to maintaining. It also isn't an approach that we should put much effort into expanding/maturing (there are better ways to be user friendly.) It was originally a bit of a response to people who kept saying that OPS was too hard to use because it required working in a Jupyter notebook. Frankly, I think there are better solutions to make that response.
However, I totally intend to leave it in as an easter egg for anyone who finds it, because I find it hilarious. Especially the error demon.