Not seeing what this example adds over the other ones. We've already
shown subcommands and shown that `App` has extra behavior for when
definint subcommands.
This better models what users should be doing and makes it so all
comments are more clear. In a prior commit, when a changed an `exit` to
`unwrap`, I disliked the fact that I was mixing an unwrap explanatory
comment in with another comment. This makes them stand apart.
The subcommand examples focus on the various ways of looking up
subcommands except for the main one people should be using. This has
previously caused confusion, see https://github.com/clap-rs/clap/discussions/3000
To keep the examples focused, I only show `ArgMatches::subcommand`. I
figure the examples are not exhaustive and that for the cases when
someone wants to do something more specialized, they can pull up the
API reference.
The comments in these examples say that a `conflicts_with` should
override `required`. This seems to be true one way but not the other,
causing these examples to error out at runtime.
This consolidates two `crate_*!` macro examples into a `app_from_crate`
example.
- This is more of what we expect users to use
- We've talked about splitting the `crate_*` macros out into their own
crate. This shifts the focus to what clap would be providing long
term
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
2817: Add support for Multicall executables as subcommands with a Multicall setting r=pksunkara a=fishface60
Co-authored-by: Richard Maw <richard.maw@gmail.com>
There were fewer occasions than I expected where the use of
`multiple_values` was superfluous and we could instead use the more
predictable `multiple_occurrences`.
In terms of the remaining `multiple` split work, #1772 will take care of the derive
behavior and #2692 will resolve any remaining issues with values vs
occurrences in positional arguments.
Fixes#2816
* feat(arg_value): ArgValue can be used for possible_values
Through the ArgValue it is possible:
* `hide` possible_values from showing in completion, help and validation
* add `about` to possible_values in completion
* Resolved a few change-requests by epage
* make clippy happy
* add ArgValue::get_visible_value
* remove verbose destructering
* rename ArgValue::get_hidden to ArgValue::is_hidden
* add test for help output of hidden ArgValues
* Documentation for ArgValue
There is an issue that required to implement From<&ArgValue> for
ArgValue. We should probably find a solution without that.
* fix requested changes by epage
* fix formatting
* add deref in possible_values call to remove From<&&str>
* make clippy happy
* use copied() instad of map(|v|*v)
* Finishing up for merge, hopefully
* changes requested by pksunkara
