[Pulp-list] flags vs. bool options

[Jeff Ortel]

On 05/22/2012 09:02 AM, Jay Dobies wrote:
> On 05/22/2012 09:55 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote:
>> I've noticed that in some of our extensions, we are defining parameters
>> as boolean options instead of using flags. It seems more intuitive to
>> have a CLI users and much more in line with most other Linux commands to
>> specify (for example):
>>
>> --ssl-verify
>>
>> instead of:
>>
>> --ssl-verify=true
>>
>> and requires far less handling/conversion/validation in our code.
>
> The problem comes in setting that option to false in an update call.
> You'd need a separate argument for --disable-ssl-verify on the update,
> which is cumbersome.
>
> There's also a difference between False and "default". Using the flag
> model, there's no way to later use an update call to indicate it's been
> removed entirely from the configuration. That'd require a third flag,
> --remove-ssl-verify
>
> Using this approach, we have three possibilities in a single option:
>
> --ssl-verify=true # set the config value to true
> --ssl-verify=false # set the config value to false
> --ssl-verify="" # remove entirely from the config and use default
>
> Using this across the board is more consistent when you get to things
> like files. Setting a CA certificate with --ca-cert=<filename> and then
> later removing it with --ca-cert="" is the same concept for removing as
> it is for the booleans.

Ah, didn't realize these options were managing properties and not just 
flags used by the CLI.  This makes sense.

>