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

More powerful shell completion #1905

Open
3 tasks done
bartekpacia opened this issue May 2, 2024 · 2 comments
Open
3 tasks done

More powerful shell completion #1905

bartekpacia opened this issue May 2, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
area/v3 relates to / is being considered for v3 kind/feature describes a code enhancement / feature request

Comments

@bartekpacia
Copy link
Member

bartekpacia commented May 2, 2024

Checklist

  • Are you running the latest v3 release? The list of releases is here.
  • Did you check the manual for your release? The v3 manual is here.
  • Did you perform a search about this feature? Here's the GitHub guide about searching.

What problems are there currenty?

  • shell completions is only possible for commands - not for flags

  • ShellCompletionFunc does not provide what the user has already entered in the prompt

What problem does this solve?

Currently urfave/cli allows for customizing shell completion only for commands.

The Go module that does the best job at shell completions is cobra. Here are docs for it. urfave/cli is not Cobra and I hope it will never become one – it's much more lightweight, minimal, and fun - but I strongly believe that shell completions are a very useful feature.

Proposed solution

ShellComplete func for flags, for example:

cli.StringFlag{
	Name:    "region-id",
	Aliases: []string{"id"},
	Value:   "",
	Usage:   "region to upload data to",
	ShellComplete: func(ctx context.Context, c *cli.Command) {
		fmt.Println("us-central1")
		fmt.Println("us-east1")
		fmt.Println("eu-west1")
	},
},

Additionally, both ShellComplete on flags and on command should provide the content of the prompt, so the developer can e.g. filter out duplicated completions:

cli.Command{
	Name:      "run",
	ShellComplete: func(ctx context.Context, c *cli.Command, args []string) []string {
		options := []string{"alpha", "bravo", "charlie", "delta"}
		if err != nil {
			return
		}

                completions := []string{}
		for _, option := range options {
			if slices.Contains(args, option) {
				continue
			}

			completions = append(completions, option)
		}

                return completions
	},
}

To avoid reinventing the wheel, completion shell scripts could be taken from Cobra (link). Deep dive & research is required to see if it fits into urfave/cli.

Summary of proposed changes

  • change type of ShellCompleteFunc from:

    type ShellCompleteFunc func(ctx context.Context, c *Command)

    to:

    type ShellCompleteFunc func(ctx context.Context, c *Command, args []string, toComplete string) ([]string, ShellCompDirective)

    The presence and name of ShellCompDirective is tentative – but it's useful in Cobra.

    This ideally should be done before v3 stable gets released.

  • add ShellComplete field to all the flags – StringFlag, IntFlag. (What about BoolFlag?)

Describe alternatives you've considered

None.

@bartekpacia bartekpacia added kind/feature describes a code enhancement / feature request area/v3 relates to / is being considered for v3 labels May 2, 2024
@meatballhat
Copy link
Member

@bartekpacia I love this! Most of my recent programmable completion experience has been with click so the signature changes you are recommending make perfect sense to me.

@meatballhat
Copy link
Member

meatballhat commented May 5, 2024

oh, and to answer your question about BoolFlag: idk offhand, so try out an implementation and see how it feels?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/v3 relates to / is being considered for v3 kind/feature describes a code enhancement / feature request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants