Comment by jamil7

Comment by jamil7 19 hours ago

It's maybe reasonable to change the defaults, but I think you should also be mindful of running any random cli program in your codebase, the top of the Github readme does indicate that the --check mode runs it without deleting files.

richardw 16 hours ago

I’d maybe recommend inverting the command so it doesn’t delete by default but only when you add the relevant flag. Far better to add a little rigmarole than deal with a sad person who wiped their code.

Reply View 6 replies

jamil7 16 hours ago

I’m not the author of the tool, I was just chiming in. But yes, inverting it probably makes sense.

Reply View | 5 replies
- bmelton 15 hours ago
  
  Arguendo, having to type extra characters to enable the functionality that the tool says it will do in its very name seems backwards to me.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  diggan 14 hours ago
  
  Besides, the common behavior is to do what it says on the tin by default, but offer flags to make cli's "simulate" their run with "--dry-run" or similar.
  I'm not sure I know of any utility that would have the opposite behavior than that.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies

zlies 19 hours ago

You're totally right. I just quickly scanned the readme and had expected a tool that only check the files. But yes, it's a bad idea in general to run random cli programs without checking them in detail

Reply View 3 replies

diggan 14 hours ago

> had expected a tool that only check the files
Isn't the name kind of a giveaway that it does more than just checking? "ts-remove-unused" is plastered all over the place, and you need to even type/paste the name into your terminal before you can use it.

Reply View | 0 replies
mewpmewp2 7 hours ago

Don't people do that all the time? I doubt that even you check everything that you run thoroughly. There's a lot of trust we have put into all those tools.

Reply View | 0 replies
kazushisan 19 hours ago

I’m sorry that it may have been unclear that the tool will make modifications without the check flag. I’m glad you didn’t loose any unstated changes :)
I will add a cautionary note to README to make it clear!

Reply View | 0 replies