Klemens Böswirth

Okay sorry, I missed that because the PRs linked in the top post still fail. But it seems they were not rerun after the fix

This conflicts with #3938

1. I disagree with @mpranj and think that not running `check_formatting` in parallel with anything else is appropriate. Since `check_formatting` does a diff, we it should run alone to ensure...

> Probably, in this case we should simply remove the offending test case I think that would be most of the `testmod_specload` tests, since they are mostly their to check...

> remove its tests Only remove the tests that check setter functionality (`test_add`, `test_edit`, `test_remove`) and the parts of other tests that test `kdbSet`. There should still be basic tests...

Seems like the merge algorithm doesn't correctly handle the fact, that root names end with a slash. Not sure how exactly the renaming is done, but it seems a good...

There is also this function https://github.com/ElektraInitiative/libelektra/blob/7f3f343cabcec561c87de8b41fbeae552699d697/src/libs/elektra/keyname.c#L679 which may be a better fit. In any case, I think the `keySetName` with the custom `strremove` should be replaced. AFAICT it doesn't handle...

> num_processes -> processes/num `processes` is definitely plural. With `num_processes` you could argue that it stands for "number of processes" which is singular....

I'm not sure about the `struct command` approach. I get that you wanted to keep the commands separate, but this is quite the leaky abstraction. It still requires changes in...

> I felt like it would make sense to be able to validate given data Hm, yeah since you are using `elektraGetOpts` directly, there is probably no better way than...