Nn Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:14:27 -0400, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > I had intended it to only print the final "effective" value > that the command would actually use. I don't remember if I > ever experimented with config values that are set at multiple > levels, but testing it now shows that you're right it does > print a "def_param" message for each level. > > I would suggest we fix it to only print the final value > since we really just want to know whether the command will > or will not use a feature. The inheritance is somewhat > irrelevant. > > But the change to do that may be quite a mess, so printing > the scope name as you have here is fine. And may help with > support when debugging users having confusing problems, so > I'm fine with it. Yes, as I replied both way is OK for me, but sorry for only replied the append-scope way. I will post a new patch v5 and include the related changes to fix this. Thanks.
