Open
Description
Based on some confusion I saw from others recently, it seems the table returned for the command mount:size
is unclear. For example, this table is returned for three mounts on on volume:
+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Mount(s) | Size(s) | Disk | Used | Available | % Used |
+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| data | 4.1 MiB | 1.9 GiB | 238.1 MiB | 1.7 GiB | 12.2% |
| data.ms | 221.4 MiB | | | | |
| output | 6.6 MiB | | | | |
+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+
At first glance, this appears to be a table, which would mean the items in the first row only apply to that row. But really, it's about the disk that applies to all items in that row.
It seems easy enough to split them into two tables, like so:
+---------+-----------+
| Mount | Size |
+---------+-----------+
| data | 4.1 MiB |
| data.ms | 221.4 MiB |
| output | 6.6 MiB |
+---------+-----------+
+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Disk | Used | Available | % Used |
+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| 1.9 GiB | 238.1 MiB | 1.7 GiB | 12.2% |
+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+
That's more accurate. But it doesn't work well when there are multiple volumes and the information is actually tabular. So I don't know what the solution should be, but ideally, it shouldn't be like the table in the first example.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels