Thanks Ash bring this up. I agree with Chris points > in which case I think it would be very confusing to have <target> switch > between singular and plural; both from a user perspective and from a coding > perspective.
IMO, I think we should use plural in our cli, I think it just like RESTful api path prefer plural, means we have lots of resource and we could pick one or more Best Wish — Jiajie On Jun 20, 2019, at 00:01, Chris Palmer <ch...@crpalmer.com<mailto:ch...@crpalmer.com>> wrote: I think it can make sense to use both singular and plural, if you structure your commands in the right way. For example Kubernetes generally use the structure of: kubectl <action> <target> where target can be singular or plural depending on what you want to take action on. This is opposed to GCP which use the general structure of: gcloud <target> <action> in which case I think it would be very confusing to have <target> switch between singular and plural; both from a user perspective and from a coding perspective. I think the Airlfow cli is much more in line with the second structure. It would be weird to me if the Airflow cli had airflow dags list # plural and airflow dag trigger # singular To that end I would suggest that Airflow sticks with either singular or plural, but not both. Chris On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:52 PM Bas Harenslak <basharens...@godatadriven.com<mailto:basharens...@godatadriven.com>> wrote: My 2c: I googled a bit and checked a few other CLIs. The internet is full of people discussing this topic and there is no straight answer, so pick one and stick with it. Most CLIs seem to use both plural and singular, depending on whether you’re making a request to single resource or multiple resources: Kubernetes: both (e.g. kubectl get pod for single pod, kubectl get pods for all) Gcloud: plural (e.g. gcloud compute instances move … for moving a single instance) AWS: both Docker: both I think it kinda makes sense to use both forms, since in spoken word we also talk about a “dag” (singular) when referring to one single DAG, and talk about “dags” (plural) when referring to multiple DAGs. Cheers, Bas On 11 Jun 2019, at 20:28, Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com<mailto:kamil.breg...@polidea.com><mailto: kamil.breg...@polidea.com<mailto:kamil.breg...@polidea.com>>> wrote: gcloud use a plurral form. https://cloud.google.com/sdk/gcloud/reference/compute/instances/list On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:08 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: To bring up the point that William Pursell brought up in the vote thread: Not sure if this is the right place to address minor issues, and perhaps I'm late to the discussion. It would be much more natural to use singular expressions. eg, airflow dag list airflow pool list airflow pool add etc. Does anyone have any opinion about this. I'm fairly ambivalent. What do other tools do here? (i.e. is there any prior art we can copy) -ash On 11 Feb 2019, at 08:48, Szymon Przedwojski < szymon.przedwoj...@polidea.com> wrote: +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>
