playground: implement mode option for painter algorithm populating options

[tisonkun]

What problem does this PR solve?

This PR closes #1269

It introduces a mode option to switch default config set among tidb or tikv-slim and allow user populate more options based on the default set.

What is changed and how it works?

Now, we directly communicate with FlagSet and use Changed to see if user explicit sets a config flag.

And I implement the painter algorithm that

1. layer 0: draw the version config
2. layer 2: draw the default set based on mode option
3. layer 3: draw the reset options configured by user

each layer overwrite options set in early layer.

Check List

Tests

• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)

I run

• tiup playground
• tiup playground --mode tidb
• tiup playground --mode tikv-slim
• tiup playground --mode unknown
• tiup playground --db 0 --tiflash 0
• tiup playground --mode tikv-slim --db 1 --tiflash 1

and all run as expected.

I'm willing to add some automatic test but help wanted. Also I think we can add tests after this pr merged instead of be too mean to a fruitful pull request.

Side effects

• Increased code complexity

with increasing flexibility.

Related changes

• Need to cherry-pick to the release branch
• Need to update the documentation

Yes, we need to update the documentation. But where?

Implement `mode` option for painter algorithm populating options. `tidb` as the original defaults and `tikv-slim` for only pd, tikv, and monitor instances.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[tisonkun]

/cc @iosmanthus @AstroProfundis

[ti-chi-bot]

@tisonkun: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: iosmanthus.

Note that only pingcap members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

/cc @iosmanthus @AstroProfundis

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1365 (e2095c2) into master (3202e61) will increase coverage by 0.88%.
The diff coverage is 34.07%.

❗ Current head e2095c2 differs from pull request most recent head ef65ee7. Consider uploading reports for the commit ef65ee7 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1365      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   25.38%   26.26%   +0.88%     
==========================================
  Files         265      275      +10     
  Lines       20464    20907     +443     
==========================================
+ Hits         5194     5491     +297     
- Misses      14473    14618     +145     
- Partials      797      798       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integrate	13.76% <34.07%> (-1.77%)	⬇️
playground	13.76% <34.07%> (?)
tiup	?
unittest	21.57% <0.00%> (-0.11%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
components/playground/playground.go	48.29% <0.00%> (+48.29%)	⬆️
components/playground/main.go	46.36% <34.32%> (+42.85%)	⬆️
main.go	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️
pkg/repository/utils/hash.go	0.00% <0.00%> (-81.82%)	⬇️
cmd/env.go	21.42% <0.00%> (-71.43%)	⬇️
pkg/repository/model/publish.go	0.00% <0.00%> (-71.43%)	⬇️
pkg/utils/args.go	0.00% <0.00%> (-50.00%)	⬇️
cmd/root.go	24.46% <0.00%> (-48.21%)	⬇️
pkg/repository/v1manifest/repo.go	0.00% <0.00%> (-44.80%)	⬇️
pkg/repository/model/model.go	0.00% <0.00%> (-44.71%)	⬇️
... and 54 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3202e61...ef65ee7. Read the comment docs.

[AstroProfundis]

You can use pflag.Flag.Visit() to determine if an argument is set by user, here's an example in tiup mirror sub command

tiup/cmd/mirror.go

Line 294 in dd6b818

cmd.Flags().Visit(func(f *pflag.Flag) {

[tisonkun]

/cc @AstroProfundis @lucklove

I've updated the implementation as @AstroProfundis suggested, using Visit method. The PR is ready for review.

[ti-chi-bot]

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

• AstroProfundis

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by writing /lgtm in a comment.
Reviewer can cancel approval by writing /lgtm cancel in a comment.

[AstroProfundis]

/merge

[ti-chi-bot]

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: ef65ee7

[andylokandy]

Does this PR need to cherry-pick?

[tisonkun]

Does this PR need to cherry-pick?

I have no idea but it just works for me using a nightly version.

[andylokandy]

I think it is better to release it.

[lucklove]

@andylokandy Will be released in v1.5.0

[andylokandy]

ok, i see. The release is spilt from master.