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
A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0
- We needed derive documentation
- I had liked how serde handled theres
- I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation
- The examples were broken and we needed tests
- The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and
cookbook content
- We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and
thinking they were looking at what is currently released
- We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that
documentation was located
From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github
- We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not
having an external site like serde
- We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align
with the 4 styles of documentation
- We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with
trycmd
- Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release
This had downsides
- The tutorials didn't have the code inlined
- Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the
different forms of documentation
- In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different
types of documentation
Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only
designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive
reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was
keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its
just me but its easy to overlook
- You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]`
- Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last
writer winning
Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made
me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs.
When doing this
- Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims
- We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of
the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to
their rule (user vs contributor)
- We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision
between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API
with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the
other.
- Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the
documentation
- Limited inline comments were added to example code
- Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching
comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and
not meant to teach on its own.
This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further
improvement. Current know downsides:
- Content source is more split up for the tutorials
This hopefully addresses #3189
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
When upgrading our company projects from clap 3.1 to clap 3.2 I had
to fix several references to `clap::lazy_init`. People are not
supposed to do that, but that's hard to enforce.
Hope placing `once_cell` reexport into `__macro_refs` prevent at
least some of the such issues in the future.
Before, I was mixed on doing this as ideally people would upgrade
through the minor releases, going through the release notes. This also
saves us havin to audit deprecations to make sure they are all pointing
to the latest.
First, this isn't practical for users. Its annoying to pin your version (at least
its easier now that we pin `clap_derive` for users) and a lot of work to
go through them one step at a time.
On top of that, we've changed our deprecation policy to put the timing
of responding to deprecations into the user's hands with, with us
putting them behind the `deprecated` feature flag. This means someone
might respond to deprecations every once in a while or might not do it
until right before the 4.0 release. Our deprecation messages should be
updated to respond to that.
This supersedes #3616
This broke when we introduced clap_lex and then did a refactor on top.
We put in guards to say that escapes shouldn't happen but missed `--=`
which isn't quite an escape.
Not fully set on what error should be returned in this case (we are
returning roughly what we used to) but at least
we aren't panicing.
Fixes#3858
Between
- `ArgAction::SetTrue` storing actual values
- `ArgAction::Set` making it easier for derive users to override bool
behavior
- `Arg::default_missing_value` allowing hybrid-flags
- This commit documenting hybrid-flags even further
There shouldn't be anything left for #1649Fixes#1649
This adds a new `Cargo.toml` feature named `deprecated` that opts
controls whether deprecation warnings show up. This is starting off as
non-default though that may change (see below).
Benefits
- Allows a staged rollout so a smaller subset of users see new
deprecations and can report their experience with them before everyone
sees them. For example, this reduces the number of people who have to
deal with #3822.
- This allows people to defer responding to each new batch of
deprecations and instead do it at once. This means we should
reconsider #3616.
The one risk is people who don't follow blog posts and guides having a
harder time upgrading to the next breaking release without the warnings
on by default. For these users, we reserve the right to make the
`deprecated` feature `default`. This is most likely to happen in a
minor release that is released in conjunction with the next major
release (e.g. when releasing 4.0.0, we release a 3.3.0 that enables
deprecations by default). By using a feature, users can still disable
this if they want.
Thanks @joshtriplett for the idea
Though this is changing an API item we export, we do not consider this a
breaking change because
- This was an implementation detail of the macros and people shouldn't be using it directly
- The `macro_rules` macro is coupled to `clap` because they are in the
same crate
- The derive macro is coupled to `clap` because `clap` declares a
`=x.y.z` dependency on `clap_derive
Fixes#3828
- This matches the more container-like naming we are aiming for
- This provides an opportunity to warn people about moving away from
`ArgAction::IncOcccurrences` for flags, like the deprecation for
`ArgMatches::occurrences_of` to help people migrate in preparation for
clap 4 (rather than having the behavior change subtly in a way only
caught by thorough tests)
In addition, I feel `contains_id` has less ambiguous meaning than
`is_present`.
