Skip to content

docs(cli): document stack selection pattern semantics - #1912

Open
badmintoncryer wants to merge 1 commit into
aws:mainfrom
badmintoncryer:docs/stack-selection-patterns
Open

docs(cli): document stack selection pattern semantics#1912
badmintoncryer wants to merge 1 commit into
aws:mainfrom
badmintoncryer:docs/stack-selection-patterns

Conversation

@badmintoncryer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Follow-up to #1909.

Adds a short paragraph to the README explaining that stack patterns are globs matched with OR semantics, so !A !B selects everything — use !(A|B) to exclude multiple stacks.


By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license

@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.27%. Comparing base (5766544) to head (4e19c19).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1912   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.27%   91.27%           
=======================================
  Files          79       79           
  Lines       12139    12139           
  Branches     1720     1720           
=======================================
  Hits        11080    11080           
  Misses       1024     1024           
  Partials       35       35           
Flag Coverage Δ
suite.unit 91.27% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@mrgrain mrgrain left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey @badmintoncryer I think I have changed my mind on this. In this comment I have a minimal implementation that isn't depending on string matching.

#1909 (comment)

Would you still be interested in contributing this? Sorry about the back and forth.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants