This changes the default type as well to encourage preserving the full
information for shelling out. If people need UTF-8, then they can
change the value parser.
Fixes#3733
Previous behavior:
- They'd be sorted by default
- They'd derive display order if `DeriveDisplayOrder` was set
- This could be set recursively
- The initial display order value for subcommands was 0
New behavior:
- Sorted order is derived by default
- Sorting is turned on by `cmd.next_display_order(None)`
- This is not recursive, it must be set on each level
- The display order incrementing is mixed with arguments
- This does make it slightly more difficult to predict
We had some tests for this but not sufficient obviously. The problem is
we were tweaking the positional argument counter when processing flags
and not just positional arguments. Delaying it until after flags seems
to fix this.
Fixes#3959
This fixes a bug introduced in 4a694f3592
when we were trying to move away from presence checks via occurrences.
I switched it to the common type of presence check but really what we
want is a highest-precedence check.
Fixes#3872
Someone should not reasonably expect a coun flag to go up to billions,
millions, or even thousands. 255 should be sufficient for anyone,
right?
The original type was selected to be consistent with
`ArgMatches::occurrences_of` but that is also used for tracking how
many values appear which can be large with `xargs`.
I'm still conflicted on what the "right type" is an wish we could
support any numeric type. When I did a search on github though, every
case was for debug/quiet flags and only supported 2-3 occurrences,
making a `u8` overkill.
This came out of a discussion on #3792
This mostly exist for
- Knowing of the value came from the command-line but we now have
`ArgMatches::source`
- Counting the number of flags but we now have `ArgAction::Count`
This shouldn't be needed anymore now that this is effectively the new
behavior for the non-deprecated actions.
This was briefly talked about in
https://github.com/clap-rs/clap/discussions/2627 but I wasn't familiar
enough with the implementation to know how safe it is. Now, maintainrs
and users can be more confident because they are explicitly opting into
it.
See also #3795
This is a follow up to #3420. Its easy to overlook this because it is only
useful for the conditionals (we actually prevent applying unconditional
defaults to unconditional requireds). This became apparent with the
increased use of defaults with `SetTrue`.
As always, there is the question of when is a bug fix a breaking change.
I'm going to consider this safe since we prevent some instances of this
from even happening and we already did #3420 and this is in line with
those.
