Way to list all bins available to me in my app?

[sethladd]

I was just working with a customer and we were curious what I could run from pub run .... We didn't find a way to discover what's available to us. Is there such a thing? Something like a pub run --list ?

[nex3]

There isn't, but that's a good idea.

[sethladd]

Neat!

[antonmoiseev]

Are you still considering adding this command? I would like to work on it, have a couple of questions.

[nex3]

Yeah, I'd accept a patch that adds this.

[antonmoiseev]

Nice! I'm thinking about the right way to implement this, and have two options in mind:

1. List all executables from bin and .pub/bin directories.
2. List all executables from bin and bin directories of the immediate dependencies.

I have a couple of concerns about the first option:

• Looks like it doesn't cover all the cases. For example snapshots are not generated for path dependencies.
• It requires pub get to be invoked before running pub run --list.

The second option looks good, but taking into account different types of sources, looks like it also requires pub get to be executed beforehand. However I'm still exploring this approach.

Could you advise what would be the correct way to get the complete list of executables?

[nex3]

The second option is definitely correct, for the reasons you've discovered. You'll always need pub get to be run though, since otherwise you won't have concrete dependency versions—and the executables in a dependency can change from version to version.

[antonmoiseev]

Could you answer several more questions:

1. dartfmt formats the entire file including the lines I haven't modified while addressing the issue. Should I leave or revert these changes?
2. Do you have any preference regarding the output format of the command? Right now I just print each executable on its own line:
   
3. I believe we won't be able to list all possible executables that can be invoked with pub run, for example executables generated by transformers or located outside of the bin directory (in tool, lib, etc.) Can you confirm it's out of the scope of the issue?
4. I noticed the integration tests keep each file descriptor on its own line, however dartfmt not always preserve this formatting. Should I prefer dartfmt result or manually re-format descriptors?

[nex3]

dartfmt formats the entire file including the lines I haven't modified while addressing the issue. Should I leave or revert these changes?

pub doesn't use dartfmt in general, so please revert any changes to code that you didn't author.

Do you have any preference regarding the output format of the command? Right now I just print each executable on its own line:

It might be nice to group executables by package. Something like:

foo: foo, bar
baz:qux
test

Then only bold the executable names and not the package names, to add some contrast.

I believe we won't be able to list all possible executables that can be invoked with pub run, for example executables generated by transformers or located outside of the bin directory (in tool, lib, etc.) Can you confirm it's out of the scope of the issue?

I think we should only list executables that are executable in the foo:bar form. So in your image, we would display bin/baz.dart as app:baz, and we wouldn't display bin/sub/qux.dart at all.

I noticed the integration tests keep each file descriptor on its own line, however dartfmt not always preserve this formatting. Should I prefer dartfmt result or manually re-format descriptors?

Manually re-format them.

[akhomchenko]

Should be closed by #1680