On 01/10/2020 17:08, Chandan Singh wrote:
Hi,
Apologies for the late response, but I wanted to share my $0.02 on this topic.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:09 PM Douglas Winship
<[email protected]> wrote:
+1
I really like this
On 23/09/2020 11:19, Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
We know that the code of buildstream should be lean and trimmed down, and
that users are expected to create helper scripts that use bst in many ways
to achieve different things. Those scripts will probably be shared on
remote repositories and users will look for them, install them, use them.
But where are them? How should they look like in the filesystem, and how
Buildstream can help us discover what we have installed, with a small and
simple command line addition (well, two, really, maybe three):
bst list-scripts
lists the scrips installed in /usr/share/bst/scripts and binaries in the
form of bst-{script-name} without the `bst-` part.
so, for instance, if I have:
/usr/share/bst/scripts/license-check.sh
/usr/bin/bst-check-reproducibility.sh
I'd be +0 on this, but if such a command were to exist, I think it
should at least print the full names and paths in case someone wants
to investigate.
$ bst list-scripts
license-check
check-reproducibility
$bst l<tab>
$bst license-check
$bst license-check <args> passes the list of arguments to the script, and
executes.
I would be -1 on `bst` CLI auto completing non-bst commands. First,
`bst` would not know about the options for those commands anyway so
the auto-complete would only help so much as to discover the command
names. More importantly, it would give the impression BuildStream owns
these commands, which would be a bad UX in my opinion. And also has
the chances to generate more issues for the BuildStream project when
these third-party scripts stop working, and users are not clear that
they are not a part of the BuildStream project.
As an alternative, what about just installing all these `bst-*`
scripts under your PATH somewhere? For example, I have `bst-here` on
my path and bash happily tab completes it. This way, you could do
something like:
$ bst-<tab>
bst-license-check
bst-check-reproducibility
...
$ bst-license-check
This already works and does not require the `bst` CLI to learn any
new magic. And it also makes it clear that `bst<space>something` is
always provided by BuildStream core, and `bst<dash>something` is
provided by third-party integrations.
I'd be curious to hear what would be the upsides of having `bst`
itself do this rather than rely on standard bash completion.
+1
I agree with everything here about the tab completion.
bst<dash> is a good naming convention to use here. bst_license_checker
doesn't follow it at the moment, but could probably be renamed if we
decide it's important for everything to match.
Cheers,
Chandan
