Conversation
Move the planning stage to a separate function. Also a small refactor of `report_dry_run`
|
Regarding whether it's worth it... I think returning a different type (e.g., using |
After sleeping on it, I think I agree but I also think that the alternative of making every install call site require an identical preparation step seems sub-optimal. Also, the But, regardless of the option, I think fundamentally, Changelog seems like something which could be returned from either function. I will explain more in #16981.
I mean, there is this way to look at it: the command that initiates this is I agree that it not returning a changelog in the dry-run case is weird, but I will explain more in the other PR. |
|
Superseded by #17039. |
Summary
Move the planning stage to a separate function.
Also a small refactor of
report_dry_run.I don't think this is necessarily worth it. I think a better approach is just to return the plan from install either always or when dry running (currently it returns an empty change-log instead).
Test Plan
Test suite.