Custom Commands Should Not Require Stacks#1052
Conversation
|
I think we want to support stacks, but that stacks are optional, does that make sense? If they are there, great. They are not, then it's not a problem. |
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis pull request removes the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant CLI as CLI
participant Init as InitCliConfig
participant Check as checkConfig
CLI->>Init: Call InitCliConfig(atmosConfig)
Init->>Check: Invoke checkConfig(atmosConfig, processStacks)
alt processStacks true
Check->>Check: Validate stack parameters (base path, included paths)
else processStacks false
Check->>Check: Skip stack validation
end
Check-->>Init: Return error or nil
Init-->>CLI: Return configuration result
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
✨ Finishing Touches
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
That is correct. This pr takes care of this condition. |
…uire-stacksbase_path-and
|
These changes were released in v1.161.0. |
what
stacks.base_pathandstacks.included_pathsin atmos config. So this pr will make them optional.why
references
Summary by CodeRabbit