This feature is too immature at this stage in the release. See
clap-rs/clap Issue 3020 when bringing this feature back.
This reverts commit 301c6f765a.
This reverts commit 43a4c90c86.
This reverts commit 4e29777b21.
This reverts commit 69957c4ddd.
This reverts commit bdb1d324a5.
This reverts commit b102da0cd2.
This reverts commit 72429be14e.
This reverts commit 0b7def675b.
This reverts commit b86aa631be.
This reverts commit 6b458c602d.
Looks like this is coming from `update_from_arg_matches` where we do a
ladder of `if __clap_arg_matches.is_present(...)` that clippy wants to
be `else if`s. While for human edited code, that does clarify intent,
for machine generated code that is rarely read, its a pain to do, so
silencing it.
Unfortunately, it isn't in a group we can overall silence.
Fixes#3017
This reverts commit 6898fbde33.
PR #2144 added the `license` field but no consumer has been added since
the (like Issue #1768). Since this is not ready yet, I am pulling it
from the 3.0 release.
So far, our main route for pulling a feature from the release has
been to put it behind a `unstable-*` feature flag and to create a
stablization tracking issue. I chose to instead remove the feature
because a write-only field with no effect does not provide values for
people to use in as an early access and so doesn't outweight the cost of
the extra documentation noise and code noise it creates. Additionally,
keeping an `unstable-` feature around when it has such an unknown path
(and time table) to stalbization feels like it violates YAGNI. I'm
uncertain how much of this feature we can implement and not create a
legal trap for users because the crate's license is insufficient for the
final artifact's license. I feel our stabliazation process sshould be
about iteration and collecting user feedback which this doesn't line up
with.
When someone is ready to tackle #1768, it will be easy to revert this
commit and pick up the work again.
Fixes#3001
In #2851, we moved color from an AppSetting to function (with some
tweaks in #2907). When doing this, we documented `App::color` to be
equivalent of `App::global_settings(Color...)` but never actually
propagated it.
We are now propagating it. A test is added to ensure that no matter
how we store the color choice, we continue to propagate it. This
required exposing `App::get_color`.
In experimenting on #1772, I want to write test cases for various
combinations of required or not, values vs occurrences, etc. There
wasn't really a clear place to put these.
On top of that, I wanted there to be a clear place in the tests for
describing the behavior of special types, to make it easier to audit and
easier to see how a PR for #1772 changes things.
As part of this effort in organizing these tests, I reduced the number
of tests that use special types. This better focuses these tests on the
cases they are intending to cover, rather than pulling in unrelated
features. This makes it easier to audit special types and makes it so
failures give more focused results, making it easier to see what broke.
In #2985, I noticed #2834 was incomplete, there were case-insensitive
comparisons we were doing without being unicode aware (when compile
options are set).
The downside is that each comparison will require a UTF-8 validation.
These seem to be in more of corners of the API, rather than in common
calls in common usages, so hopefully that isn't too much of a problem.
