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

Throw error on storeOptionsAsProperties() after setting option values #1928

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 19, 2023

Conversation

aweebit
Copy link
Contributor

@aweebit aweebit commented Aug 2, 2023

Cherry-picked from #1926 for better separation of concerns.

Additionally, a unit test has been added to cover the error.

Problem

program.setOptionValue('foo', 'bar');
console.log(program.getOptionValue('foo')); // 'bar'
console.log(program.opts()); // { foo: 'bar' }
program.storeOptionsAsProperties(); // allowed!
console.log(program.getOptionValue('foo')); // undefined
console.log(program.opts()); // {}

ChangeLog

Changed

  • Breaking: throw error when calling .storeOptionsAsProperties() after setting an option value

const program = new commander.Command();
program.setOptionValue('foo', 'bar');
expect(() => {
program.storeOptionsAsProperties(false);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Passing false is same as the default state, so it isn't the interesting case and pretty unlikely to be encountered:

Suggested change
program.storeOptionsAsProperties(false);
program.storeOptionsAsProperties();

(I know the throw does not currently care, but I would still like to test the interesting case.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@aweebit aweebit Aug 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I actually just copied the call from above, and before doing that, I took a minute to think about why you'd decided to pass false in that previous test. The way I ended up explaining it to myself is that you'd probably wanted to test the unproblematic call that would not even change anything if it were allowed because that demonstrates how intransigent the check is. It is obvious an error will be thrown when passing true or nothing if even passing false results in an error (despite the fact that the call would simply be no-op otherwise). That last bit is not so obvious, so that is why I think tests with false might actually be the more interesting ones here.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I actually just copied the call from above

Oh, digging... The previous test logic dates back to when the default was to store options as properties, and was not correctly updated when the default behaviour changed. Please change the previous test too! Either pass true or no param, either is fine.

Copy link
Collaborator

@shadowspawn shadowspawn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This might help someone making a gradual (and big) transition away from storing options as properties and as first step switching from program.foo = true to program.setOptionValue('foo', true).

One minor change requested.

Copy link
Collaborator

@shadowspawn shadowspawn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Collaborator

@abetomo abetomo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1

@abetomo abetomo merged commit 96f076d into tj:develop Aug 19, 2023
11 checks passed
@shadowspawn shadowspawn added the pending release Merged into a branch for a future release, but not released yet label Aug 22, 2023
@shadowspawn shadowspawn removed the pending release Merged into a branch for a future release, but not released yet label Feb 3, 2024
Vylpes pushed a commit to Vylpes/random-bunny that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2024
This PR contains the following updates:

| Package | Type | Update | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| [commander](https://github.com/tj/commander.js) | dependencies | major | [`^11.1.0` -> `^12.0.0`](https://renovatebot.com/diffs/npm/commander/11.1.0/12.0.0) |

---

### Release Notes

<details>
<summary>tj/commander.js (commander)</summary>

### [`v12.0.0`](https://github.com/tj/commander.js/blob/HEAD/CHANGELOG.md#1200-2024-02-03)

[Compare Source](tj/commander.js@v11.1.0...v12.0.0)

##### Added

-   `.addHelpOption()` as another way of configuring built-in help option (\[[#&#8203;2006](tj/commander.js#2006)])
-   `.helpCommand()` for configuring built-in help command (\[[#&#8203;2087](tj/commander.js#2087)])

##### Fixed

-   *Breaking:* use non-zero exit code when spawned executable subcommand terminates due to a signal (\[[#&#8203;2023](tj/commander.js#2023)])
-   *Breaking:* check `passThroughOptions` constraints when using `.addCommand` and throw if parent command does not have `.enablePositionalOptions()` enabled (\[[#&#8203;1937](tj/commander.js#1937)])

##### Changed

-   *Breaking:* Commander 12 requires Node.js v18 or higher (\[[#&#8203;2027](tj/commander.js#2027)])
-   *Breaking:* throw an error if add an option with a flag which is already in use (\[[#&#8203;2055](tj/commander.js#2055)])
-   *Breaking:* throw an error if add a command with name or alias which is already in use (\[[#&#8203;2059](tj/commander.js#2059)])
-   *Breaking:* throw error when calling `.storeOptionsAsProperties()` after setting an option value (\[[#&#8203;1928](tj/commander.js#1928)])
-   replace non-standard JSDoc of `@api private` with documented `@private` (\[[#&#8203;1949](tj/commander.js#1949)])
-   `.addHelpCommand()` now takes a Command (passing string or boolean still works as before but deprecated) (\[[#&#8203;2087](tj/commander.js#2087)])
-   refactor internal implementation of built-in help option (\[[#&#8203;2006](tj/commander.js#2006)])
-   refactor internal implementation of built-in help command (\[[#&#8203;2087](tj/commander.js#2087)])

##### Deprecated

-   `.addHelpCommand()` passing string or boolean (use `.helpCommand()` or pass a Command) (\[[#&#8203;2087](tj/commander.js#2087)])

##### Removed

-   *Breaking:* removed default export of a global Command instance from CommonJS (use the named `program` export instead) (\[[#&#8203;2017](tj/commander.js#2017)])

##### Migration Tips

**global program**

If you are using the [deprecated](./docs/deprecated.md#default-import-of-global-command-object) default import of the global Command object, you need to switch to using a named import (or create a new `Command`).

```js
// const program = require('commander');
const { program } = require('commander');
```

**option and command clashes**

A couple of configuration problems now throw an error, which will pick up issues in existing programs:

-   adding an option which uses the same flag as a previous option
-   adding a command which uses the same name or alias as a previous command

</details>

---

### Configuration

📅 **Schedule**: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 **Automerge**: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 **Ignore**: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

 - [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by [Renovate Bot](https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate).
<!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiIzNy4wLjAiLCJ1cGRhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiIzNy4wLjAiLCJ0YXJnZXRCcmFuY2giOiJkZXZlbG9wIn0=-->

Reviewed-on: https://gitea.vylpes.xyz/RabbitLabs/random-bunny/pulls/145
Reviewed-by: Vylpes <ethan@vylpes.com>
Co-authored-by: Renovate Bot <renovate@vylpes.com>
Co-committed-by: Renovate Bot <renovate@vylpes.com>
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.

3 participants