Until we have a modular help generator that can be configured and/or
authored by the users themselves as part of #2914, we will provide the
flexibility of turning off colored help messages but still wanting
colored error messages.
This flexibility was available before #2845 and @dbrgn immediately
noticed it and requested it back to which I agree. This was also
suggested by Josh in
[here](https://github.com/clap-rs/clap/issues/2806#issuecomment-933877438)
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.
The intention had been to that people setting this would now set
nothing. Unfortunately, clap2 had `EmptyValues` as the default, so
people were more likely to unset it, making this not work out.
This creates distinct tutorial examples from complex feature examples
(more how-tos). Both sets are getting builder / derive versions (at
least the critical ones).
These were broken in #17 and #38 when renaming `hidden` to `hide`. These
weren't caught because we test with `--all-targets` which is mutually
exclusive with `--doc`.
This is prep for moving the derive tests. Besides organizing the test
folder for each API, this should reduce link time at the cost of
re-compiling more when a test changes.
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
