Command to execute a snippet #35

[sambhavnoobcoder]

Description

This PR addresses issue #35 by implementing a new 'run' command in the Pieces CLI that allows users to directly execute their saved bash snippets in the terminal.

Problem:

Users want a quick way to execute their saved bash snippets without having to manually copy and paste them into the terminal.

Solution:

We've implemented a new ExecuteCommand class that allows users to execute a snippet by its name directly from the Pieces CLI. This is achieved through two new files: run_shell_command.py and run_bash_command.py.

Changes:

1. run_shell_command.py (new file):

   • Implements ExecuteCommand class for executing shell commands
   • Includes methods for asset retrieval, selection, and execution
   • Uses subprocess to run commands with shell=True

2. run_bash_command.py (new file):

   • Similar to run_shell_command.py, but executes commands in bash
   • Uses subprocess to run commands with ['bash', '-c', command]

Key features:

• Users can now run snippets directly using the Pieces CLI
• Implements both shell and bash execution of snippet content
• Handles errors and displays execution results
• Maintains existing functionality for browsing and selecting snippets
• Limits the number of assets displayed (default 10, customizable)

Implementation details:

• Both files use the ExecuteCommand class with similar structure
• The main difference is in the execute_in_shell and execute_in_bash methods
• Utilizes existing Pieces functionality (AssetsCommandsApi, ListCommand, etc.)
• Integrates with PiecesSelectMenu for asset selection

[bishoy-at-pieces]

LGTM but seems there is a lot of duplicate code

[sambhavnoobcoder]

so far we are working on only shell scripts since Bash scripting is a subset of shell scripting . So most of the common bash commands would easily on the shell implementation itself , without any difference to the expected behaviour . Also , since shell is almost entirely compliant with the POSIX standards and bash is also nearly fully POSIX compliant ( bash version 4.0 and later have been made fully POSIX compliant) so we only have a very few scripts that might give error to the above implementation(Only a smaller niche of commands that may not have been upgraded , deprecations , etc .) . Hence I would suggest , that we could solve this with a simple try - catch statement , so that in case a command execution fails with the shell , it is then given to the bash implementation , and if that fails , it is concluded to be in an incorrect format . Considering the size of/ number of edge cases expected here Is small , I would think this to very feasible as well .

If you think this is a valid solution , I'll start coding it out , else if you have any other suggestion , I'd be glad to give that approach a look as well .

[bishoy-at-pieces]

Alr if so I would like to add the bash commands to the list too