Add more specific sub command error handling #6038
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for working on this @TylerSustare 👍
Can you add a unit test for this so that we can be sure that it won't be altered accidentally in the future? Thanks!
| describe('#getCommand()', () => { | ||
| beforeEach(() => { | ||
| pluginManager.addPlugin(SynchronousPluginMock); | ||
| pluginManager.serverless.cli.loadedCommands = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pmuens Absolutely! Good call on adding a test for it.
When adding the loadedCommands I would normally put this JS object in a fixtures file but it didn't look like this project really uses fixtures. So I put it in line with the test. Let me know if there is a preferred way to do this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. Yes, using this inline should be ok 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just tested it and it works fine! Thanks for working on this @TylerSustare 👍
LGMT 
| describe('#getCommand()', () => { | ||
| beforeEach(() => { | ||
| pluginManager.addPlugin(SynchronousPluginMock); | ||
| pluginManager.serverless.cli.loadedCommands = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. Yes, using this inline should be ok 👍
pmuens
changed the title
2 participants
What did you implement:
Closes #6035
How did you implement it:
Before sending the user to
getCommandSuggestion, if the previous commands are valid, return a message telling the user how better to self-correct. Admittedly this message is only to tell the user how to run a command that will give him/her a better error message. Most error handling is handled well in the serverless framework. However, for these niche cases, I feel this is a slight improvement.How can we verify it:
This is only handled in error cases where the framework is basically saying "We don't know what you want". I couldn't find any tests for this case to modify.
Current handling:
With this change:
This change does not conflict with any other
validationmethods. For examplevalidateOptions()still runs as anticipated since this error case is only with commands or aliases.Todos:
Is this ready for review?: YES
Is it a breaking change?: NO