all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 11 months ago (1 child)

Counterpoint: Yes, parse don't validate, but CLIs should not be dealing with dependency management.

I love Python's argparse because:

  • It's "Parse, don't validate" (even supports FileType as a target)
  • It enforces or strongly encourages good CLI design
    • Required arguments should in most situations be positional arguments, not flags. It's curl <URL> not curl --url <URL>.
    • Flags should not depend on each other. That usually indicates spaghetti CLI design. Don't do server --serve --port 8080 and server --reload with rules for mix-and-matching those, do server serve --port 8080 and server reload with two separate subparsers.
    • Mutually exclusive flags sometimes make sense but usually don't. Don't do --xml --json, do -f [xml|json].
    • This or( pattern of yours IMO should always be replaced by a subparser (which can use inheritance!). As a user the options' data model should be immediately intuitive to me as I look at the --help and having mutually exclusive flags forces the user to do the extra work of dependency management. Don't do server --env prod --auth abc --ssl, do server serve prod --auth abc --ssl where prod is its own subparser inheriting from AbstractServeParser or whatever.

Thinking of CLI flags as a direct mapping to runtime variables is the fundamental mistake here I think. A CLI should be a mapping to the set(s) of behavior(s) of your application. A good CLI may have mandatory positional arguments but has 0 mandatory flags, 0 mutually exclusive flags, and if it implements multiple separate behaviors should be a tree of subparsers. Any mandatory or mutually exclusive flags should be an immediate warning that you're not being very UNIX-y in your CLI design.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I've used the node.js version of argparse, which as I understand it, is a clone of the python implementation and I've not seen how to do mutually exclusive flags. Mind you, at the time I didn't need them, so it wasn't an issue, but I don't recall seeing any way to do it either.

    Did I miss something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago*

    https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/ - Edit: Ah I see, the author of this article is pointing to this older article too and admits being influenced by it. So never mind.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    The or() combinator means exactly one succeeds.

    Using "or" to define a function that does "xor"... Did that guy never hear about formal logic? That's, like, first or second semester stuff...

    Here's the thing: I don't have a CS degree.

    sigh

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)

    The result type in rust does not return a true/false but a type. More importantly though, it doesn't return err if both values are set but simply returns the first value:

    So... It's not only not mapping your input to truth values, it also behaves more like I'd expect an "or" to behave, which is not "xor" or, if there's more than two inputs, "exactly one", but succeeding if any input is set.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Oh boy .. very cool.

    Now how do I do this in bash?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    I'm not sure the value added is worth the extra layer.

    I guess my command line options just aren't all that complicated.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I like the concept, and it's great in TS. Unfortunately, not as doable in other languages.

    I'm a bit curious if it's possible to extend clap to do this in Rust though (specifically mutually-exclusive arg groups).

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    clap already supports all this: https://docs.rs/clap/latest/clap/struct.Arg.html#method.conflicts_with It's just a great library, having you could think of and applying the same parse-don't-validate mentality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    This doesn't represent the mutual exclusivity through the type system (which is what the article is all about).

    I love clap and I use it a lot, but the only way to represent the exclusivity through the type system in Rust is through an enum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    Agreed. As nice as clap is, it's not a combinator. Parser combinators have a the really nice feature of sharing the same "shape" as the data they parse, which makes them trivial to generate from a schema ... or to just use them to represent your schema in the first place ;) .

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Clap has dependent options and mutually-exclusive argument groups built-in: https://docs.rs/clap/latest/clap/_derive/_tutorial/index.html#argument-relations

    For the environment-specific requirements, you can use compiler feature flags...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Mentioned this to the other commenter, but this doesn't use the type system to enforce the mutual exclusivity constraint. In Rust, the main way to do that via the type system is through enums.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Ah, fair enough. Not sure how to do that then.

    I was gonna say, I feel like the current method does a good enough job documenting that validation has happened, but I guess you do want it reflected in the structure of the type, so that the code that takes the information from the struct can safely make the assumption that some of the options don't exist. And then, yeah, it would be nice to not need a separate parsing step for that.

  • source
  • parent