[zlies]

You should switch the default to not delete any files and modify/remove the files only with some flag (--dry-run=false, --rm, --delete, etc). I just deleted all files accidentally in a monorepo :D Luckily I didn't had any uncommitted changes and could recover using git

[jamil7]

It's maybe reasonable to change the defaults, but I think you should also be mindful of running any random cli program in your codebase, the top of the Github readme does indicate that the --check mode runs it without deleting files.

[richardw]

I’d maybe recommend inverting the command so it doesn’t delete by default but only when you add the relevant flag. Far better to add a little rigmarole than deal with a sad person who wiped their code.

[jamil7]

I’m not the author of the tool, I was just chiming in. But yes, inverting it probably makes sense.

[bmelton]

Arguendo, having to type extra characters to enable the functionality that the tool says it will do in its very name seems backwards to me.

[diggan]

Besides, the common behavior is to do what it says on the tin by default, but offer flags to make cli's "simulate" their run with "--dry-run" or similar.

I'm not sure I know of any utility that would have the opposite behavior than that.

[richardw]

Well, explosives. They do in fact explode (what it says on the tin) but you have to put in some effort to make them do so. Similar to wiping out your codebase when testing an app. Personally I think developer will reduce support load from angry people by adding guardrails. Someone will not have committed their code.

An alternative is to have a check “Are you sure?” Just before delete, with a -fuckit_yolo flag to override the check.

I once had a desktop app and realised over a while that just making copious backups (50, IIRC) meant users were less likely to get angry when they had lots of extra safety, even from their own actions.

[cdirkx]

The "install -y" pattern is kind of similar. Various tools have as a default that it gives a list of packages that would be installed, and then ask for confirmation.

[zlies]

You're totally right. I just quickly scanned the readme and had expected a tool that only check the files. But yes, it's a bad idea in general to run random cli programs without checking them in detail

[kazushisan]

I’m sorry that it may have been unclear that the tool will make modifications without the check flag. I’m glad you didn’t loose any unstated changes :)

I will add a cautionary note to README to make it clear!

[diggan]

> had expected a tool that only check the files

Isn't the name kind of a giveaway that it does more than just checking? "ts-remove-unused" is plastered all over the place, and you need to even type/paste the name into your terminal before you can use it.

[mewpmewp2]

Don't people do that all the time? I doubt that even you check everything that you run thoroughly. There's a lot of trust we have put into all those tools.

[filleokus]

It would be kinda cool to use git status to avoid accidental data loss for tools like this.

I've never interacted with git programatically so I don't know how messy it would be to implement. But for tools that mostly operate on "whole files" rather than lines in files, I guess it shouldn't be that tricky?

[umanwizard]

It’d be very easy to programmatically check which files in a repo directory are unknown to git. Git status does indeed have a machine-parseable output mode.