🐇 Starting with completions is better. One question I have is whether the completions work for subcommands as usual, like in the static completions.

🐢 Yes, they work. We need to add:

source <(COMPLETE=zsh xvc)

to .zshrc, though.

🐇 It looks like we can drop the xvc completions command. We’re just checking the COMPLETE environment variable, and there’s no need for a separate command in this case.

🐢 Yes, let’s remove that.

🐇 Maybe we can employ a completions module for all completion-related functionality. It’s a separate thing, you know.

🐢 Which completions do we need?

🐇 We can just mark them with TODOs now.

🐢 Yes, let’s check where we need completions and what.

🐇 I noticed we’re repeating options in XvcFileCLI, and some of the options are missing, e.g., --from-ref and --to-branch.

🐢 Because it can compile into a different binary, and global options don’t work that way. Maybe we can move all these binaries into different files under lib. We can have feature flags to turn off certain features and compile different binaries.

🦊 Let’s search for it; I haven’t seen it before: building different binaries with feature flags using cargo.

🐢 There is no clear-cut solution, but it looks like we can move all binaries to the root with the required-features field.

🐲 We can postpone this to another release.

🐇 Yes, let’s not spend time on this now.

🐢 Should we try making pipeline_name a global option? It’s repeating everywhere.

🐇 That will make it easier to maintain.

🐢 We’ll have to pass pipeline_name to subcommands, though.

🐇 I think we can have a set of global options that we can pass. For the time being, that’s only the pipeline_name.

🐢 Okay. Let’s do this.

🐇 A similar option is the step name for pipeline steps.

🐢 Dependencies will need a revamp in the next version anyway. So let’s keep it for now.

🐲 Also, the semantics of step-name are different for these commands. step new interprets it as a new name, while step dependency interprets it as an existing name. The first can be renamed to --name, and the second can be --to, as one of its aliases suggests.

🐢 Yes, let’s keep it for now, and we’ll continue to work on others.

🦊 I want to post a comment in the clap discussions.

🐢 Wrote it. Now let’s build it after changing the pipeline_name.

🐇 It compiles. Should we test it?

🐢 I think we’ll test after all this completion work is done.

🐇 We did most of the strum-related completion.

🐢 Didn’t test them yet, though.

🐇 This is Rust. It will work if it compiles, and it compiles.

To make debugging easier, we can add file deletions in the ./start-readme script to the notebook itself.

Instead, I’ll run my watcher run-after-commit.sh to ensure that the files are deleted after commits.

That may also work; you can use both as well.

I noticed cli-opts pass --no-system-config etc. by default. Let’s deal with this first.

I fixed that.

I’m testing whether we are in the directory that we should be in with xvc.root("--absolute"), but it looks like it’s not possible to pass a string argument to the command.

Let me take a look at this.

It looks like there have been some changes in optional parameter handling in PyO3. You may need to deal with keyword arguments with decorators.

Now, let’s try xvc.file().track() once more with dir-0001/.

It seems to be working now. With an existing directory, it doesn’t show an error.

What does xvc.file().list() show?

It shows a single string with \n in it. It looks like we need to handle this in the output thread.

I added a replace("\\n", "\n") to output_str at the end, but it didn’t make a difference. I tested in the notebook with list_result.split("\n"), and these \n characters are indeed CRLF. So Jupyter shows CRLF in strings with \n, and this is not something we should try to fix, I think.

You can search how to show \n characters in a Jupyter notebook with CRLF.

The output string should be fed into repr, as in:

# Define a string with CRLF characters
text_crlf = "Hello\r\nWorld\r\nThis is a test string."

# Use repr to show the \r\n characters explicitly
print(repr(text_crlf))

I tested this, and GPT misleads. repr is when you want to show \n, not vice versa. When I print(list_result), it prints the results properly.

It looks like we don’t need to make this a priority now. We can tell the user in the notebook that the commands are intentionally returning strings, and they can process or print them however they want.