Oh boy .. very cool.
Now how do I do this in bash?
Oh boy .. very cool.
Now how do I do this in bash?
Counterpoint: Yes, parse don't validate, but CLIs should not be dealing with dependency management.
I love Python's argparse because:
FileType as a target)curl <URL> not curl --url <URL>.server --serve --port 8080 and server --reload with rules for mix-and-matching those, do server serve --port 8080 and server reload with two separate subparsers.--xml --json, do -f [xml|json].or( pattern of yours IMO should always be replaced by a subparser (which can use inheritance!). As a user the options' data model should be immediately intuitive to me as I look at the --help and having mutually exclusive flags forces the user to do the extra work of dependency management. Don't do server --env prod --auth abc --ssl, do server serve prod --auth abc --ssl where prod is its own subparser inheriting from AbstractServeParser or whatever.Thinking of CLI flags as a direct mapping to runtime variables is the fundamental mistake here I think. A CLI should be a mapping to the set(s) of behavior(s) of your application. A good CLI may have mandatory positional arguments but has 0 mandatory flags, 0 mutually exclusive flags, and if it implements multiple separate behaviors should be a tree of subparsers. Any mandatory or mutually exclusive flags should be an immediate warning that you're not being very UNIX-y in your CLI design.
I've used the node.js version of argparse, which as I understand it, is a clone of the python implementation and I've not seen how to do mutually exclusive flags. Mind you, at the time I didn't need them, so it wasn't an issue, but I don't recall seeing any way to do it either.
Did I miss something?
https://docs.python.org/3/library/argparse.html#argparse.ArgumentParser.add_mutually_exclusive_group
However I've never had to use that feature. Like I said it can make sense in specific contexts but it is a pretty strong indicator that you have built in a CLI antipattern or too much complexity.
https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/ - Edit: Ah I see, the author of this article is pointing to this older article too and admits being influenced by it. So never mind.
I'm not sure the value added is worth the extra layer.
I guess my command line options just aren't all that complicated.
I like the concept, and it's great in TS. Unfortunately, not as doable in other languages.
I'm a bit curious if it's possible to extend clap to do this in Rust though (specifically mutually-exclusive arg groups).
clap already supports all this: https://docs.rs/clap/latest/clap/struct.Arg.html#method.conflicts_with It's just a great library, having you could think of and applying the same parse-don't-validate mentality.
This doesn't represent the mutual exclusivity through the type system (which is what the article is all about).
I love clap and I use it a lot, but the only way to represent the exclusivity through the type system in Rust is through an enum.
Agreed. As nice as clap is, it's not a combinator. Parser combinators have a the really nice feature of sharing the same "shape" as the data they parse, which makes them trivial to generate from a schema ... or to just use them to represent your schema in the first place ;) .
Clap has dependent options and mutually-exclusive argument groups built-in: https://docs.rs/clap/latest/clap/_derive/_tutorial/index.html#argument-relations
For the environment-specific requirements, you can use compiler feature flags...
Mentioned this to the other commenter, but this doesn't use the type system to enforce the mutual exclusivity constraint. In Rust, the main way to do that via the type system is through enums.
Ah, fair enough. Not sure how to do that then.
I was gonna say, I feel like the current method does a good enough job documenting that validation has happened, but I guess you do want it reflected in the structure of the type, so that the code that takes the information from the struct can safely make the assumption that some of the options don't exist. And then, yeah, it would be nice to not need a separate parsing step for that.
no comments (yet)