Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geode.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geode.apache.org
From: Michael William Dodge <mdodge@pivotal.io>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.7\))
Subject: Re: Consistent results from gfsh commands
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:29:16 -0700
References: <CANztrJOYqdvz43tcTy_CUZRPv=bUGUrwY1+CDzX_m57ctGActw@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@geode.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <CANztrJOYqdvz43tcTy_CUZRPv=bUGUrwY1+CDzX_m57ctGActw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E6D7B810-7149-42DA-8D53-008CA0F85555@pivotal.io>
archived-at: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:29:29 -0000

+1 for consistency!

Sarge

> On 31 Oct, 2017, at 07:59, Jens Deppe <jensdeppe@apache.org> wrote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> I've noticed that various commands, that execute on multiple members,
> return either tabulated results (one line per member - for example
> CreateRegionCommand) or a single pass/fail line. In the latter case =
it=E2=80=99s
> possible that information would get lost. For example if a command =
fails on
> multiple members (but not all) then the user would not have complete
> insight into where the failure occurred.
>=20
> I'd like to propose that if a command executes on multiple members it
> should always return and display all the results. Alternatively, if =
the
> command succeeds then it should simply indicate success, however if it
> fails (even partially) it should return a full list of each member and =
the
> result of the command on each of the members.
>=20
> Thoughts; comments?
>=20
> --Jens