[skybrian]

One thing I like to see is a 'dry run' like 'make -n'. Although, maybe that's not possible in all cases.

Another possibility might be to output a something like a shell script that would do a rebuild the same way, so you can see what it did and hack it when debugging.

[photonthug]

Yes. Dry runs at least, and better yet terraform-style planning that produces an artifact that can be applied. These should really be more common with all kinds of software

[hinkley]

I would like to see more tools iterate on trying to do terraform-like output because while terraform diffs are interesting, practically most of my teammates couldn’t tell what the fuck they said and a couple times I missed important lines that caused us prod issues. I think we can do a better job than showing a wall of text.

[photonthug]

Presentation is a separate matter though, just like with git diffs ideally you could choose a wall of text or a side by side ui, see things at a high level or drill down to line by line. A tag layer plus custom validation between plan/apply gives you an automatic way to short circuit things. But none of it can work without a plan as a first class object.

Thing is the plan/apply split isn’t even primarily for users necessarily, it’s just good design. It makes testing easier, and leaves open the possibility for plugging in totally different resolution strategies without rewriting the whole core. The benefits are so big there that I’d strongly prefer that more software is using it more often, even if I’m going to shut my eyes and auto apply every time without glancing at the plan.