refactor(client): use cobra's builtin completion emitter #21
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Cobra 1.5.0 addresses the performance issues, see the entries marked with "perf" in the release notes' completion section. This one should be good to go after upgrading to it. I could submit a PR for that but I suppose with vendoring in use here, it's easier if you can find time to take care of it directly. |
|
upgraded cobra to 1.5.0 |
|
Rebased on top of chore/upgrade-cobra-to-1.5.0 |
Cobra v1.2.0+ contains a default completion emitter, make use of it.
|
Rebased on master; with Cobra 1.6.1 there, this should be ready to roll. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Cobra v1.2.0+ contains a default completion emitter, we could make use of it.
However, the default emitter outputs cobra's "V2" completions, which are a lot slower than the traditional ones, see spf13/cobra#1680. This is relevant for example with hostname completions which may return a lot of entries.
In that sense I actually don't recommend merging this yet, until there's some way to address the slowness. So marking as a draft.