Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve the command for printing completion scripts #1998

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Nov 24, 2024

Conversation

bartekpacia
Copy link
Member

Which issue(s) this PR fixes

This is a feature PR that resolves issue #1904.

Special notes for your reviewer

I would appreciate it if you check out the code locally, build it, and test the shell completions yourself.

I did that myself, but the more testing, the better. Also, if you have any ideas on how to test this better, I'd love to hear them.

Release Notes

  • Rename the generate-completion flag to simply completion. This makes our behavior in this matter consistent with the other very popular CLI library for Go – spf13/cobra.

  • The completion scripts now include your CLI app name and are ready to be used right away.

To enable completion only for the current shell Zsh session:

. <(./my-awesome-app completion zsh

To enable completions permanently by placing the completion scripts into the standard completions directory:

my-awesome-app completion zsh > /opt/homebrew/share/zsh/site-functions/_my-awesome-app

Please note that for completion to work, your top-level cli.Command name and your binary name must be the same.

completion.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
command.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bartekpacia bartekpacia force-pushed the bartekpacia/feature/expose_completion_scripts branch 3 times, most recently from 4c63582 to ed55e57 Compare October 30, 2024 23:13
@bartekpacia
Copy link
Member Author

I'm having trouble understanding why it fails.

Running FLAGS="--walk docs/v3/" make gfmrun works without problem for me.

Will appreciate help here @dearchap @meatballhat @abitrolly

@bartekpacia bartekpacia force-pushed the bartekpacia/feature/expose_completion_scripts branch from ed55e57 to 24524da Compare November 3, 2024 09:31
@bartekpacia bartekpacia marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2024 09:35
@bartekpacia bartekpacia requested a review from a team as a code owner November 3, 2024 09:35
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
package main
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I dont see the value of this example. Its not really doing anything. If you want to really test this move it into examples_test.go or call it func ExampleCompletion(...) in completion_test.go

Copy link
Member Author

@bartekpacia bartekpacia Nov 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi, I do see its value, it's a simple yet quite realistic CLI app. It's quite useful for testing shell completions, because it has a few subcommand and sets EnableShellCompletion: true.

Maybe I can modify example-cli or example-hello-world and add a few subcommand and EnableShellCompletion: true there?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I find complete examples very useful. Sometimes you just need a bit of working code to debug something that doesn't work anymore. If completions break when migrating from v2 to v3, then using this v3 code as a reference, I could find the cause much faster.

Complete working examples are also useful for training AI.

It needs some better organization, though. Maybe even numbers to sort contents in the order people usually learn the library. By most frequent use cases.

https://github.com/urfave/cli/tree/ef45965eeb9c1122885fafa4a391b6be6a674f3d/examples

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, the main reason why I put this sample in a new file is because examples_test is not easily runnable.

I agree with @abitrolly comment that it's be nice to have a single place for more "full app" examples.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

example/simpletask.go doesn't tell anything to the person who browses examples. For the sake of bikeshedding examples/commands.go may be a better name.

I understand that this example can be used to test command completions, but because it is not used actually used in tests, I would suggest to submit it in a separate PR, where we could also discuss how to integrate it with what we have in docs.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good idea, I agree. I will add the simpletask example in a separate PR.

Copy link
Member Author

@bartekpacia bartekpacia Nov 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, actually I think I have another reason why I like /usr/bin/env bash.

For example on macOS, the /bin/bash is a 20-years old bash3, and almost everyone using bash installs a modern bash5 with Homebrew.

Output on my machine:

$ which -a bash
/opt/homebrew/bin/bash
/bin/bash

So I think hardcoding /bin/bash in this case will always default to the pre-installed bash3, which I think is not so nice.

wdyt?

completion.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@abitrolly
Copy link
Contributor

I'm having trouble understanding why it fails.

Running FLAGS="--walk docs/v3/" make gfmrun works without problem for me.

I am not familiar with this piece of code. And don't see any failures. I guess it is fixed.

What concerns me is how much to the binary size is added by the completion feature and its templates? I guess it is non-optional, right?

@dearchap
Copy link
Contributor

dearchap commented Nov 4, 2024

@abitrolly All the template code is already in current binary. So @bartekpacia 's work doesnt really change.

bartekpacia and others added 2 commits November 5, 2024 21:05
@bartekpacia bartekpacia force-pushed the bartekpacia/feature/expose_completion_scripts branch from 2da1d53 to 8a0b42d Compare November 23, 2024 21:37
@bartekpacia bartekpacia force-pushed the bartekpacia/feature/expose_completion_scripts branch from 8a0b42d to 9b41c34 Compare November 23, 2024 21:42
@bartekpacia
Copy link
Member Author

bartekpacia commented Nov 23, 2024

@Juneezee @dearchap @abitrolly i moved completion script strings back into individual files. I think this PR is good to be merged now.

Copy link
Contributor

@abitrolly abitrolly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I left some minor comments for the things I could review for the time being. It would be realistic to merge them if submitted in a separate PRs, because the rest of the diff is beyond my ability to review right now.

help.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
help.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
package main
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

example/simpletask.go doesn't tell anything to the person who browses examples. For the sake of bikeshedding examples/commands.go may be a better name.

I understand that this example can be used to test command completions, but because it is not used actually used in tests, I would suggest to submit it in a separate PR, where we could also discuss how to integrate it with what we have in docs.

autocomplete/bash_autocomplete Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bartekpacia bartekpacia force-pushed the bartekpacia/feature/expose_completion_scripts branch from b901b8d to 4f29af7 Compare November 24, 2024 18:07
@abitrolly
Copy link
Contributor

Rename the generate-completion flag to simply completion.

I am not aware how this feature works.

Is it enabled by default?
Does it show up in the list of user configured commands by default?
Can users choose the name they are prefer for this completion command?

@bartekpacia
Copy link
Member Author

bartekpacia commented Nov 24, 2024

This PR does 2 things:

  • renames an existing generate-completion to be completion (in-line with Cobra and other popular CLI libraries)
  • the completion script printed by this command now contains the app name, and is ready to be pasted in the completion directory without any kind of manual editing.

No other behavior changes are expected.

@abitrolly
Copy link
Contributor

This PR does 2 things:

Maybe make 2 PRs making 1 thing, so that we can finally merge at least something already. :D

"zsh": getCompletion("autocomplete/zsh_autocomplete"),
"fish": func(c *Command) (string, error) {
"bash": func(c *Command, appName string) (string, error) {
b, err := autoCompleteFS.ReadFile("autocomplete/bash_autocomplete")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i wonder if we can ignore the error since we are loading from embedFS. Saves us from writing unit tests as well.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice catch! I think it's not worth worrying about the error here

Copy link
Member Author

@bartekpacia bartekpacia Nov 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just decided to not additionaly wrap the errors to minimize amount of changes.

I think it's fine now.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes but the code cov decreased, I've worked so much over the last month to get the code coverage from 80 something percent to 98.4% and now it decreases again.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, I didn't think about it. I'm sorry!

What command can I run locally to see coverage percentage?

Copy link
Contributor

@dearchap dearchap left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please try to add additional tests or remove err in the lookup.

@bartekpacia bartekpacia requested a review from dearchap November 24, 2024 20:21
Copy link
Contributor

@abitrolly abitrolly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I haven't tested Go code, and can not give it a proper review, but all questions that I had had been addressed, so no reason for me to hold this back. Except, maybe to squash the history, or rebase to a minimal set of commits to avoid stumbling into reverts while blaming the history.

@bartekpacia
Copy link
Member Author

thanks for the review everyone :)

I will of course "squash and merge" this PR to not butcher history

@bartekpacia bartekpacia merged commit 588ada5 into main Nov 24, 2024
15 checks passed
@bartekpacia bartekpacia deleted the bartekpacia/feature/expose_completion_scripts branch November 24, 2024 21:22
@dearchap
Copy link
Contributor

make will give you the coverage percentage

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants