The error was when doing `#[clap(arg_enum, default_value_t = ...)]`.
Good example of why we should minimize `use`, at least in tests
(besides reducing merge conflicts, code churn, etc).
While I'm unsure how much type specialization we should do, we
intentionally have the `arg_enum` attribute for doing special behavior
based on it, so let's take advantage of it.
Fixes#3185
The main care about is that when we override a `flatten` / `subcommand`
doc comment in a parent container, that we make sure we take nothing
from the child container, rather than implicitly taking one `about` ut
not `long_about`.
To do this, and to play the most safe with long help detection, we reset
`long_about` to default when there is no doc comment body to use for
`long_about`.
Fixes#2983
Experimenting with treating clap-derive and clap one and the same from
the release process perspective. The completion generators are a bit
more independent.
This contains two types of re-ordering:
- Internal, putting the focus of each file first.
- Public, re-arranging items and grouping impl blocks to try to better
organize the documentation and find related items.
The main weakness of the docs work is in `Args`. Its just a mess. In
particular, we should probably link the simple casesm like `required` to
the advanced impl block.
Fixes#55
Adding in a `StructOpt` derive with `structopt` attributes, with
deprecation notices. Unofrtunately, not as many deprecation warnings as
I would like. Apparently, you can't do them for a `use` of a derive? I
also wanted to inject code that would trigger a deprecation notice for
attributes but that would require enough of a refactor that I didn't
consider it worth it. We are at least providing a transition window
even if it means we'll have to remvoe it next major release without a
deprecation warning.
This creates distinct tutorial examples from complex feature examples
(more how-tos). Both sets are getting builder / derive versions (at
least the critical ones).
I've been finding I've been setting `AppSettings` without it which is
likely leading to bugs. This tries to raise the visibility by using it
based on the setting being used and not whether the application needs
it.
Before:
- `bool`: a flag
- `Option<_>`: not required
- `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value
is not required
- `Vec<_>`: multiple values, optional
- `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple values, min values of 0, optional
After:
- `bool`: a flag
- `Option<_>`: not required
- `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value
is not required
- `Vec<_>`: multiple occurrences, optional
- optional: `Vec` implies 0 or more, so should not imply required
- `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple occurrences, optional
- optional: Use over `Vec` to detect when no option being present when
using multiple values
Motivations:
My priorities were:
1. Are we getting in the users way?
2. Does the API make sense?
3. Does the API encourage best practices?
I was originally concerned about the lack of composability with
`Option<Option<_>>` and `Option<Vec<_>>` (and eventually `Vec<Vec<_>>`).
It prescribes special meaning to each type depending on where it shows
up, rather than providing a single meaning for a type generally. You
then can't do things like have `Option<_>` mean "required argument with
optional value" without hand constructing it. However, in practice the
outer type correlates with the argument occurrence and the inner type
with the value. It is rare to want the value behavior without also the
occurrence behavior. So I figure it is probably fine as long as people
can set the flags to manually get the behavior they want.
`Vec<_>` implies multiple occurrences, rather than multiple values.
Anecdotally, whenever I've used the old `Arg::multiple`, I thought I was
getting `Arg::multiple_occurrences` only. `Arg::multiple_values`,
without any bounds or delimiter requirement, can lead to a confusing
user experience and isn't a good default for these. On top of that, if
someone does have an unbounded or a delimiter multiple values, they are
probably also using multiple occurrences.
`Vec<_>` is optional because a `Vec` implies 0 or more, so we stick to
the meaning of the rust type. At least for me, I also rarely need a
required with multiple occurrences argument but more often need optional
with multiple occurrences.
`Option<Vec<_>>` ends up matching `Vec<_>` which can raise the question
of why have it. Some users might prefer the type. Otherwise, this is
so users can detect whether the argument is present or not when using
`min_values(0)`. Rather than defining an entire policy around this and
having users customize it, or setting `min_values(0)` without the rest
of a default policy, this gives people a blank slate to work from.
Another design option would have been to not infer any special-type
settings if someone sets a handful of settings manually, which would
have avoided the confusion in Issue clap-rs/clap 2599 but I see that
being confusing (for someone who knows the default, they will be
expecting it to be additive; which flags disable inferred settings?) and
brittle (as flags are added or changed, how do we ensure we keep this
up?).
Tests were added to ensure we support people customizing the behavior to
match their needs.
This is not solving:
- `Vec<Vec<_>>`, see clap-rs/clap 2924
- `(T1, T2)`, `Vec<(T1, T2)>`, etc, see clap-rs/clap 1717
- `Vec<Option<_>>` and many other potential combinations
Fixes clap-rs/clap 1772
Fixes clap-rs/clap 2599
See also clap-rs/clap 2195
