Move options to common group, and add help text for options#118
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
This will be quite helpful, thanks @nickodell! |
Collaborator
|
Thanks @nickodell, I really appreciate all the nice cleanups and fixes you've been sending in! |
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR aims to improve two things.
First, currently some options are in a dedicated 'run-parallel' section, but other options are in the 'Custom options' section. This seems confusing.
This can be improved by moving all of the options to the same group.
Second, some options could use help text to describe what they do. I also added documentation about the default behavior, in cases where it wasn't obvious.
--skip-thread-unsafe: I tried to clarify that the the alternative to skipping thread unsafe tests is running them in a single thread, not ignoring the thread safety problem.--mark-warnings-as-unsafe: a user might think that if they don't pass this option, then warnings will not be marked as unsafe. However, this is not true. Also, I tried to clarify that the thing it reacts to is not warnings, per se, but warnings capture.--mark-ctypes-as-unsafe: I added a similar note, but was worried it might imply that we check the C code that ctypes is calling as being thread-safe, which we don't, so I added the text "(but not the underlying C code)"--ignore-gil-enabled: I added a note about what exactly this option protects against. I tried to emphasize that users who are running GIL enabled builds don't need to enable this option.Here is the rendered revised help: