[tahoe-lafs-trac-stream] [tahoe-lafs] #776: users are confused by "tahoe rm"

[tahoe-lafs]

#776: users are confused by "tahoe rm"
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
     Reporter:  zooko    |      Owner:  kevan
         Type:  defect   |     Status:  assigned
     Priority:  major    |  Milestone:  1.9.0
    Component:  code-    |    Version:  1.4.1
  frontend-cli           |   Keywords:  docs usability tahoe-rm easy unlink
   Resolution:           |  review-needed
Launchpad Bug:           |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Comment (by kevan):

 There's a conflict between this patch and trunk: darcs doesn't know what
 to do about the {{{_create_test_file}}} function in {{{test_cli.Rm}}}.

 On my system, {{{test_cli.py}}} tries to import {{{tahoe_rm}}}, which
 isn't there anymore, and also tries to quiet pyflakes for {{{tahoe_rm}}}.
 I changed these to {{{tahoe_unlink}}}; without that, the CLI tests don't
 run.

 There's a test in {{{test_cli.Unlink}}}, {{{test_rm_without_path}}}, that
 still refers to the {{{rm}}} command. I'm not sure if that's an oversight;
 to me, it seems like it'd be more consistent if it used unlink
 terminology.

 Is it worthwhile to test that {{{tahoe rm}}} behaves like {{{tahoe
 unlink}}}? Unless I'm mistaken, the only test we have of that is the one
 that is left with {{{rm}}} terminology in the {{{Unlink}}} class.

 The error message on line 26 of {{{tahoe_unlink.py}}} still refers to
 {{{tahoe rm}}}.

 Not particularly related to this ticket, save for the fact that the
 patches were in the same bundle, but you missed a couple of places when
 adding the {{{self.command_name}}} value:
   * {{{CpOptions}}} in {{{cli.py}}}
   * {{{CreateKeyGeneratorOptions}}} in {{{keygen.py}}}
   * {{{CreateStatsGathererOptions}}} in {{{stats_gatherer.py}}}

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/776#comment:23>
tahoe-lafs <http://tahoe-lafs.org>
secure decentralized storage