Proper handling and forwarding of --flags

[kentcdodds]

Right now you can do:

nps foo --bar

And p-s will run the script called foo with the flag called --bar

However if you run:

nps foo --silent --bar

then p-s will run the script called foo with the flag called --bar but without the flag called --silent. This is because of this.

Normally it's not a huge deal. I think that's confusing.

Here are a few possible solutions (all of them are breaking):

1. Only accept p-s flags before the scripts (so you'd have to do nps --silent foo --bar)
2. Require -- before the scripts and flags (nps --silent -- foo --bar)
3. Forward all flags whether they're p-s related or not (nps foo --silent --bar and forwards --silent and --bar both)

I can't think of a way to change this behavior without breaking things.

My favorite solution is the first. Mostly because it's least noisy and seems to make the most sense.

I'm working on #70 right now and will make this a part of that PR. I want feedback on this really quick. If anyone has any ideas let me know. If you'd like to vote for one or the other use github reactions to vote: 👍 for 1, 😄 for 2, 🎉 for 3, and 😕 for "I don't know/care"

[gunnx]

👍

…

On 9 Feb 2017 17:20, "Kent C. Dodds" ***@***.***> wrote: Right now you can do: nps foo --bar And p-s will run the script called foo with the flag called --bar However if you run: nps foo --silent --bar then p-s will run the script called foo with the flag called --bar but without the flag called --silent. This is because of this <https://github.com/kentcdodds/p-s/blob/3566a15b991d6b84e7386bd18b0e08c2e94c6235/src/bin-utils/index.js#L113-L124> . Normally it's not a huge deal. I think that's confusing. Here are a few possible solutions (all of them are breaking): 1. Only accept p-s flags before the scripts (so you'd have to do nps --silent foo --bar) 2. Require -- before the scripts and flags (nps --silent -- foo --bar) 3. Forward all flags whether they're p-s related or not (nps foo --silent --bar and forwards --silent and --bar both) I can't think of a way to change this behavior without breaking things. My favorite solution is the first. Mostly because it's least noisy and seems to make the most sense. I'm working on #70 <#70> right now and will make this a part of that PR. I want feedback on this really quick. If anyone has any ideas let me know. If you'd like to vote for one or the other use github reactions to vote: 👍 for 1, 😄 for 2, 🎉 for 3, and 😕 for "I don't know/care" — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#100>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB4Pj62ux-u7RTubw7WCg_0WbfHeYLjIks5ra0rsgaJpZM4L8alr> .

[kentcdodds]

Actually, yargs has a pretty sweet API for this. I think we'll do things in a way that's mostly backward compatible. If you want to forward flags into commands, you'll have to put those commands in quotes. This will make the most sense I think!

[addityasingh]

@kentcdodds But do you think it would look a clean syntax?

nps 'build --foo'

My 2 cents: I would still prefer to not have any special syntax for my cli commands and below would be better than above:

nps build --foo

[kentcdodds]

Yeah, I can see how the syntax looks much cleaner. As I described though, the problem is that there's no way to know whether the user intends for the command to be passed to p-s or build. Things get even more complicated when you have multiple scripts you're running too. Before we just forwarded all non-p-s flags on, but that got confusing if you wanted to pass on a flag to a script that p-s wouldn't forward (like --silent).

I think that this is a situation where explicit is better. Most of the time I expect that people don't pass flags via the command line directly and the flags happen inside the package-scripts.js file. So saving time typing is ok.

[kentcdodds]

Actually, I've been wrestling with this a lot because I actually realized that I pass flags/arguments to nps on the command line all the time. For example: nps t file-to-test.js --no-cache is something that I'll do fairly regularly. And I would get annoyed if I had to wrap that in quotes everytime.

So here's a proposal:

• Remove the ability to do multiple scripts in series with a single nps invocation (so no more nps lint test build, you'd have to do nps lint && nps test && nps build)
• force all nps argument to come before the script name: (so you can't do nps lint --require babel-register --cache you'd have to do nps --require babel-register lint --cache, otherwise --require babel-register would be forwarded onto the lint script in addition to --cache)

I'm not a huge fan of this either. I'm really unsure of what to do here because I don't want to make things confusing, but I want them to be ergonomic. Right now I think we favor economics to clear. Maybe we should just leave things as they are... 🤔

[kentcdodds]

I think we're just going to require the quotes. But I'm going to add option validation so if you try nps build --foo you'll get an error indicating that you may have forgotten to add quotes.

[addityasingh]

Even though I would have preferred no-quotes, but I see your point now. But adding the error for no quotes should definitely be more consistent 👍