Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Unify CLI and Cargo.yaml content via clap macros #36

Open
rhagenson opened this issue Jan 22, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Unify CLI and Cargo.yaml content via clap macros #36

rhagenson opened this issue Jan 22, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@rhagenson
Copy link
Contributor

rhagenson commented Jan 22, 2020

I noticed we are using clap for CLI. clap has macros (e.g. crate_authors!() and crate_version!()) to pull content from Cargo.toml to ensure these two are not out of sync. Is there interest in me working on this unification?

Related note: is there a reason the command name (rbt) and the package name (rust-bio-tools) are not unified? I have found this dual-naming can cause unnecessary confusion on how exactly to reference the tool. As I unify the CLI to pull from Cargo.toml would there be interest in me unifying this dual-naming strictly within the repo -- i.e., not changing the repos name, but rather the package.name in Cargo.toml and changing the name used at the CLI so it is always referred to as rbt?

Edit: Cargo.yaml -> Cargo.toml

@dlaehnemann
Copy link
Member

I think using the clap macros is a no-brainer, helping stuff stay in sync.

Regarding the rbt vs. rust-bio-tools, I assume this has not been a deliberate decision apart from rust-bio-tool being more descriptive (and a more findable crate name on docs.rs) and rbt being quicker to type. I would think that the long package name should actually also be fine to use as command name with auto-completion, but would be wary of changing this, as this will break any pipelines using rust-bio-tools. Or would changing the package name to rbt leave the crate searchable as rust-bio-tools on docs.rs? I have no clue...

@rhagenson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dlaehnemann, with the macro use being a no brainer I will work on a PR for it.

Further thought has me thinking keeping the rbt vs. rust-bio-tools as is. I think it would disrupt searching for it via cargo and on docs. Rather not break something if I have the suspicion I might be doing just that.

rhagenson added a commit to rhagenson/rust-bio-tools that referenced this issue Jan 29, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants