[components] dg info -> dg inspect

[smackesey]

Summary & Motivation

Rename dg info -> dg inspect (verb, more general).

How I Tested These Changes

Existing test suite.

[smackesey]

• [components] Rename dg check component -> dg check yaml #27962
• [components] dg info -> dg inspect #27955 👈 (View in Graphite)
• [components] Move dg cli back to verb-first (rearrange tests) #27921 : 1 other dependent PR (#27922 )
• [components] Move dg cli back to verb-first #27920
• master

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[github-actions]

Deploy preview for dagster-docs ready!

Preview available at https://dagster-docs-8810w1xko-elementl.vercel.app
https://sean-components-info-inspect.archive.dagster-docs.io

Direct link to changed pages:

• https://dagster-docs-8810w1xko-elementl.vercel.app
  https://sean-components-info-inspect.archive.dagster-docs.io/guides/labs/components/components-etl-pipeline-tutorial

[schrockn]

We should indicate in the help string that is design for consumption by tools rather than by humans.

[smackesey]

We should indicate in the help string that is design for consumption by tools rather than by humans.

At the moment it is because we dump raw JSON schema but I think it should be changed to be human-friendly by default and have a --json option.

[schrockn]

My thought is that we should focus all our effort on human friendly docs rather than maintain another surface area.

[schrockn]

But I'm open to persuasion here.

[smackesey]

I imagine inspect being used to target not just component-types, but projects, deployments, whatever. Some of these items might not be part of generated docs. I also the ability to get human-friendly CLI inspection of domain objects is just a basic part of a first class CLI (see e.g. docker inspect). It's annoying to always need to context-switch to the browser and possibly have to navigate in it.

[schrockn]

Ok got. Can you give me an example of what you think a human-readable version of inspect would look like for, say, a component type?

[smackesey]

Can you give me an example of what you think a human-readable version of inspect would look like for, say, a component type?

Something like this. We can produce a greatly simplified/compact version of the JSON schema that maybe just doesn't show nested objects at all, or maybe some compromise simple representation

simple_pipes_script_asset@dagster_components.test

A simple asset that runs a Python script with the Pipes subprocess client.

Because it is a pipes asset, no value is returned.

Scaffold attributes:
  asset_key*: string
  filename*: string
  some_other_field: <object>

Component attributes:
  asset_key*: string
  filename*: string

(run with `--json` for full represenation of schema

Can throw in some coloring as well.

[schrockn]

Ok I'm sold. Attributes might get lengthy but I guess that is ok.

…

On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 12:40 PM, Sean Mackesey < ***@***.*** > wrote: > > > Can you give me an example of what you think a human-readable version of > inspect would look like for, say, a component type? > > Something like this. We can produce a greatly simplified/compact version of the JSON schema that maybe just doesn't show nested objects at all, or maybe some compromise simple representation ***@***.***_components.test A simple asset that runs a Python script with the Pipes subprocess client. Because it is a pipes asset, no value is returned. Scaffold attributes: asset_key*: string filename*: string some_other_field: <object> Component attributes: asset_key*: string filename*: string (run with `--json` for full represenation of schema Can throw in some coloring as well. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub ( #27955 (comment) ) , or unsubscribe ( https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG3IK6IEDSOBRJ5LV33II232Q5QKNAVCNFSM6AAAAABXRR7F5CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMNZVGE3TEOBZGI ). You are receiving this because your review was requested. Message ID: <dagster-io/dagster/pull/27955/c2675172892 @ github. com> *smackesey* left a comment (dagster-io/ dagster#27955) ( #27955 (comment) ) > > > Can you give me an example of what you think a human-readable version of > inspect would look like for, say, a component type? > > Something like this. We can produce a greatly simplified/compact version of the JSON schema that maybe just doesn't show nested objects at all, or maybe some compromise simple representation ***@***.***_components.test A simple asset that runs a Python script with the Pipes subprocess client. Because it is a pipes asset, no value is returned. Scaffold attributes: asset_key*: string filename*: string some_other_field: <object> Component attributes: asset_key*: string filename*: string (run with `--json` for full represenation of schema Can throw in some coloring as well. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub ( #27955 (comment) ) , or unsubscribe ( https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG3IK6IEDSOBRJ5LV33II232Q5QKNAVCNFSM6AAAAABXRR7F5CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMNZVGE3TEOBZGI ). You are receiving this because your review was requested. Message ID: <dagster-io/dagster/pull/27955/c2675172892 @ github. com>