Added "-y" Option to convert command to directly convert the config

[aRkedos]

I implemented the feature requested in #589. I ran all test except the one described in issue #620.

I extensively tested the feature with a a lot of configs. I went with "-y" like requested in #589 but maybe it would be more concise to do -f / --force like PR #618 does with the freeze command.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #621 into master will increase coverage by 0.85%.
The diff coverage is 77.77%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #621      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.16%   78.01%   +0.85%     
==========================================
  Files           6        6              
  Lines         832      828       -4     
  Branches      239      239              
==========================================
+ Hits          642      646       +4     
+ Misses        131      122       -9     
- Partials       59       60       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
tmuxp/cli.py	68.19% <77.77%> (+1.90%)	⬆️

---

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 7db5972...d210873. Read the comment docs.

[tony]

@aRkedos Hi there, sorry about this! Can I get another rebase?

I just merged #623 / 937474a which moves us to a poetry packaging setup and will runs the PR through GitHub actions.

[aRkedos]

Do You mean just a rebase that sqaushes the 4 commits into one or a rebase that is in sync with the current state of the master branch?

[tony]

@aRkedos Hi there! Rebase in sync with the current master branch

[aRkedos]

Okay rebased it :) Would like to work on other issues / freature requests too, but don't want to do too much at the same time; so I'll wait for your feedback.

[tony]

Nice @aRkedos. I made 2 contributions to the function, what do you think?

• Can you update the changelog?
• Document behavior in readme?

[aRkedos]

Ah that totally makes sense and removes the redundancies in the if branches. My Idea was to write a helper function which does the actual file writing which is called after confirmation (be it via prompt or via option). But this way is much clearer.

And I see why my tests which I wrote initially did not affect the code coverage (was my inexpierience with pytest), I was using the invoke method so my additional branches were not covered by the test since they were not executed.

I will update the changelog and document the behaviour.

[tony]

Looks good to me! Thank you @aRkedos !