fix(usage): tie usage to config

[wraithgar]

This starts us down the path of tying the params our commands accept to
their config items. For now it is optional, and not every current
config item would cleanly render if we added them today.

The ones that are added here DO render nicely, and we can iterate from
here. We can also at a later date do the same kind of appraoch with our
positional args.

References

Related to npm/statusboard#308

Here we can see the brute-force "Just show a really long complicated usage string" approach for our current save-flag situation in use.

@scope hint example

Shorthand examples

Example of using manual usage declaration in the config to show the --no- option instead

[wraithgar]

which was not defined yet, and I re-ran the make to generate this file. We should think about automating this make command

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

We can address this once we add a config item that has this kind of type to a command's params.

[nlf]

i love this. generated usage information based on the actual available options is a huge win. added bonus that we're now separating options that are available from usage information, which are indeed two separate concerns

[isaacs]

Love this. A few suggestions and minor nitpicky fixups, but overall this is exactly the direction we should be going, yes.

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

This starts us down the path of tying the params our commands accept to
their config items. For now it is optional, and not every current
config item would cleanly render if we added them today.

The ones that are added here DO render nicely, and we can iterate from
here. We can also at a later date do the same kind of appraoch with our
positional args.

References

Related to npm/statusboard#308

Here we can see the brute-force "Just show a really long complicated usage string" approach for our current save-flag situation in use.

@scope hint example

Shorthand examples

Example of using manual usage declaration in the config to show the --no- option instead

[wraithgar]

which was not defined yet, and I re-ran the make to generate this file. We should think about automating this make command

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

We can address this once we add a config item that has this kind of type to a command's params.

[nlf]

i love this. generated usage information based on the actual available options is a huge win. added bonus that we're now separating options that are available from usage information, which are indeed two separate concerns

[isaacs]

Love this. A few suggestions and minor nitpicky fixups, but overall this is exactly the direction we should be going, yes.

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

This starts us down the path of tying the params our commands accept to
their config items. For now it is optional, and not every current
config item would cleanly render if we added them today.

The ones that are added here DO render nicely, and we can iterate from
here. We can also at a later date do the same kind of appraoch with our
positional args.

References

Related to npm/statusboard#308

Here we can see the brute-force "Just show a really long complicated usage string" approach for our current save-flag situation in use.

@scope hint example

Shorthand examples

Example of using manual usage declaration in the config to show the --no- option instead

[wraithgar]

which was not defined yet, and I re-ran the make to generate this file. We should think about automating this make command

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

We can address this once we add a config item that has this kind of type to a command's params.

[nlf]

i love this. generated usage information based on the actual available options is a huge win. added bonus that we're now separating options that are available from usage information, which are indeed two separate concerns

[isaacs]

Love this. A few suggestions and minor nitpicky fixups, but overall this is exactly the direction we should be going, yes.

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

This starts us down the path of tying the params our commands accept to
their config items. For now it is optional, and not every current
config item would cleanly render if we added them today.

The ones that are added here DO render nicely, and we can iterate from
here. We can also at a later date do the same kind of appraoch with our
positional args.

References

Related to npm/statusboard#308

Here we can see the brute-force "Just show a really long complicated usage string" approach for our current save-flag situation in use.

@scope hint example

Shorthand examples

Example of using manual usage declaration in the config to show the --no- option instead

[wraithgar]

which was not defined yet, and I re-ran the make to generate this file. We should think about automating this make command

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

We can address this once we add a config item that has this kind of type to a command's params.

[nlf]

i love this. generated usage information based on the actual available options is a huge win. added bonus that we're now separating options that are available from usage information, which are indeed two separate concerns

[isaacs]

Love this. A few suggestions and minor nitpicky fixups, but overall this is exactly the direction we should be going, yes.

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

This starts us down the path of tying the params our commands accept to
their config items. For now it is optional, and not every current
config item would cleanly render if we added them today.

The ones that are added here DO render nicely, and we can iterate from
here. We can also at a later date do the same kind of appraoch with our
positional args.

References

Related to npm/statusboard#308

Here we can see the brute-force "Just show a really long complicated usage string" approach for our current save-flag situation in use.

@scope hint example

Shorthand examples

Example of using manual usage declaration in the config to show the --no- option instead

[wraithgar]

which was not defined yet, and I re-ran the make to generate this file. We should think about automating this make command

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

We can address this once we add a config item that has this kind of type to a command's params.

[nlf]

i love this. generated usage information based on the actual available options is a huge win. added bonus that we're now separating options that are available from usage information, which are indeed two separate concerns

[isaacs]

Love this. A few suggestions and minor nitpicky fixups, but overall this is exactly the direction we should be going, yes.

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

This starts us down the path of tying the params our commands accept to
their config items. For now it is optional, and not every current
config item would cleanly render if we added them today.

The ones that are added here DO render nicely, and we can iterate from
here. We can also at a later date do the same kind of appraoch with our
positional args.

References

Related to npm/statusboard#308

Here we can see the brute-force "Just show a really long complicated usage string" approach for our current save-flag situation in use.

@scope hint example

Shorthand examples

Example of using manual usage declaration in the config to show the --no- option instead

[wraithgar]

which was not defined yet, and I re-ran the make to generate this file. We should think about automating this make command

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

We can address this once we add a config item that has this kind of type to a command's params.

[nlf]

i love this. generated usage information based on the actual available options is a huge win. added bonus that we're now separating options that are available from usage information, which are indeed two separate concerns

[isaacs]

Love this. A few suggestions and minor nitpicky fixups, but overall this is exactly the direction we should be going, yes.

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

This starts us down the path of tying the params our commands accept to
their config items. For now it is optional, and not every current
config item would cleanly render if we added them today.

The ones that are added here DO render nicely, and we can iterate from
here. We can also at a later date do the same kind of appraoch with our
positional args.

References

Related to npm/statusboard#308

Here we can see the brute-force "Just show a really long complicated usage string" approach for our current save-flag situation in use.

@scope hint example

Shorthand examples

Example of using manual usage declaration in the config to show the --no- option instead

[wraithgar]

which was not defined yet, and I re-ran the make to generate this file. We should think about automating this make command

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

We can address this once we add a config item that has this kind of type to a command's params.

[nlf]

i love this. generated usage information based on the actual available options is a huge win. added bonus that we're now separating options that are available from usage information, which are indeed two separate concerns

[isaacs]

Love this. A few suggestions and minor nitpicky fixups, but overall this is exactly the direction we should be going, yes.

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

This starts us down the path of tying the params our commands accept to
their config items. For now it is optional, and not every current
config item would cleanly render if we added them today.

The ones that are added here DO render nicely, and we can iterate from
here. We can also at a later date do the same kind of appraoch with our
positional args.

References

Related to npm/statusboard#308

Here we can see the brute-force "Just show a really long complicated usage string" approach for our current save-flag situation in use.

@scope hint example

Shorthand examples

Example of using manual usage declaration in the config to show the --no- option instead

[wraithgar]

which was not defined yet, and I re-ran the make to generate this file. We should think about automating this make command

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.

[wraithgar]

We can address this once we add a config item that has this kind of type to a command's params.

[nlf]

i love this. generated usage information based on the actual available options is a huge win. added bonus that we're now separating options that are available from usage information, which are indeed two separate concerns

[isaacs]

Love this. A few suggestions and minor nitpicky fixups, but overall this is exactly the direction we should be going, yes.

[isaacs]

It's included in the make docs that's part of the release process as a final safety net, but some easier way to run it ahead of time would be nice, too, I agree.