Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #73 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.02% 81.07% -6.95%
==========================================
Files 4 5 +1
Lines 267 301 +34
Branches 36 39 +3
==========================================
+ Hits 235 244 +9
- Misses 28 53 +25
Partials 4 4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
sepandhaghighi
requested review from
sadrasabouri
and removed request for
sadrasabouri
| parser.add_argument('--loop', help='sound play in loop', action='store_true', default=False) | ||
| parser.add_argument('--version', help="version", action='store_true', default=False) | ||
| parser.add_argument('-v', help="version", action='store_true', default=False) | ||
| args = parser.parse_known_args()[0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why we do have parse_known_args here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It appears that the first argument (filename) is positional, suggesting that parse_known_args should be used.
sadrasabouri
left a comment
sadrasabouri
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, I left two minor comments. Additionally it looks the --file is redundant since we have [FILE_PATH] there anyways.
| else: | ||
| tprint("Nava") | ||
| tprint("V:" + NAVA_VERSION) | ||
| nava_help() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is that ok we remove parser.print_help()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Calling parser.print_help() may not be incorrect, but it's not my personal preference.
2 participants
Reference Issues/PRs
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
cli.pyAny other comments?
Local tests on OSs