Vault Status Command Differs Depending on Format #19361
Merged
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
VioletHynes
reviewed
Feb 24, 2023
VioletHynes
reviewed
Feb 24, 2023
VioletHynes
reviewed
Feb 24, 2023
VioletHynes
approved these changes
Feb 24, 2023
maxb
reviewed
Feb 25, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Related GH issue: #9185
The issue is about getting different output values for “vault status” command depending on the format selected.
Though the output looks inconsistent, It looks like we only want to display the relevant fields for "table" format. I posted this on vault-team-sustaining to see what others think about this https://hashicorp.slack.com/archives/C0287E435NE/p1677105285284409.
Mehdi gave some input from support perspective and suggested that we document this and also have an additional flag such as: vault status -fields=all/* -format=table - ie some additional parameter that over-rides the current user based adaptive outputs in favor of consistent output to always show all related fields.
For now, I am more inclined towards documenting the expected differences as I feel this would be useful for new users to understand the output.
We can think of having an additional flag if we have more related issues/ requests regarding this in the future.