cli: Treat high detail levels as maximum in -netinfo #21192

1. 
   laanwj commented at 8:12 pm on February 15, 2021: member

   I somehow often type -netinfo 5 which gets treated as -netinfo 0, after this change it’s -netinfo 4 which seems more convenient behavior.
2. cli: Treat high detail levels as the maximum in -netinfo

   I somehow often type `-netinfo 5` which gets treated as `-netinfo 0`,
   after this change it's `-netinfo 4` which seems more convenient behavior.

   882ce25132
3. laanwj added the label RPC/REST/ZMQ on Feb 15, 2021
4. 
   jonatack commented at 8:29 pm on February 15, 2021: member

   Turning the guitar amp up to 11, I see :guitar:

   ACK 882ce25132e1b6880916fa154850a708e6a968b2

   Note that 174ed323d7f22d0d9217bc264771cb4e40d0c83a proposes to raise on values > 4 following on our irc convo, which might be more predictable in line with what the help says, but perhaps also more annoying…with this change (and currently) it raises on values > 255. I agree that both changes are better than the current behavior.

5. 
   laanwj commented at 8:53 pm on February 15, 2021: member

   Turning the guitar amp up to 11, I see

   Yess.

   Note that 174ed32 proposes to raise on values > 4 following on our irc convo,

   Ok, that’s fine to me too, but if we have the unspoken contract that larger values only add more verbosity I guess I slightly prefer this (so you could use 255 as “give me as much information as supported”).

6. 
   jonatack commented at 9:07 pm on February 15, 2021: member

   sgtm

   :racing_car: :dash: 255

7. 
   practicalswift commented at 9:19 pm on February 15, 2021: contributor

   Concept ACK

   I’ve always assumed that number goes up implies verbosity goes up.

   In line with: -v, -vv, -vvv, etc.

8. 
   DrahtBot commented at 5:35 am on February 16, 2021: member

   The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

   Conflicts

   Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

   • #20877 (netinfo: user help and argument parsing improvements by jonatack)

   If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

9. theStack approved
10. 
    theStack commented at 9:25 pm on February 16, 2021: member

    Tested ACK 882ce25132e1b6880916fa154850a708e6a968b2 Agree that this is closer to what the user expects. This reminds me of old projects (e.g. an early version of nmap) where sometimes developers would call gcc with absurd optimization levels like -O9 ;-) (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18582195)

    Turning the guitar amp up to 11, I see 🎸

    The spinal taproot? :metal:

11. laanwj merged this on Feb 17, 2021
12. laanwj closed this on Feb 17, 2021

    ---

13. sidhujag referenced this in commit a823baa770 on Feb 17, 2021
14. laanwj referenced this in commit cabe63759c on Mar 3, 2021
15. luke-jr referenced this in commit 552ecbe1b4 on Jun 27, 2021
16. DrahtBot locked this on Aug 16, 2022

Contributors
laanwj jonatack practicalswift DrahtBot theStack

Labels
RPC/REST/ZMQ