bash-completion: update and improve supported completion cases

[kubiko]

multiple improvements to the completion logic

• add multiple new commands,
• replace snap with pack
• add supported architectures for --target-arch and --build-for
  • do not parse snapcraft.yaml as the format changes between core20 and core22 bases, and we have only a list of predefined options regardless, use those.
• build | clean | pull | stage | prime: parse snapcraft.yaml for suggested parts
  • use shell/sed based custom parser. we do not want to bring yq as an extra dependency, and calling back to the python parser demonstrated to be very slow

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (89961cf) 89.18% compared to head (5b5a29c) 88.33%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4559      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.18%   88.33%   -0.85%     
==========================================
  Files         321      327       +6     
  Lines       21777    21961     +184     
==========================================
- Hits        19421    19399      -22     
- Misses       2356     2562     +206     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[kubiko]

@cmatsuoka @sergiusens I finally for a moment to revisit this.
Given that yq is out as outside dependency, and callback to python as tested by Claudio was very slow, I went back to shell option. Any shell-based yaml parsers I could find are overkill and usually are also a bit slow. Processing snapcraft.yaml line by line was also dog slow. So while admittedly not as readable, sed seems to be the way.
I am sure I did not catch all the corner cases, but so far this has worked on every snapcraft.yaml I could throw at it,

[lengau]

Most of these new parameters should only be available if a lifecycle command has already been declared. For example, snapcraft plugins --build-for isn't valid

[kubiko]

@lengau that is fair point, let me see if this can be fixed in easy way

[lengau]

Probably the easiest way would be to check whether any of the lifecycle commands are in $COMP_WORDS:

for i in "${COMP_WORDS}"; do
 case "$i" in  
  pull);&
  build);&
  stage);&
  prime);&
  pack);& 
  clean) 
    opts="${opts} --build-for --target-arch --debug --shell --shell-after --provider"
    break
 esac
done

[lengau]

@kubiko any update?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.36%. Comparing base (057e21b) to head (fb9de45).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4559   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.36%   88.36%           
=======================================
  Files         327      327           
  Lines       21997    21997           
=======================================
  Hits        19438    19438           
  Misses       2559     2559           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.