search

rust-bio / rust-bio-tools

A set of command line utilities based on Rust-Bio.
MIT License
182 stars 24 forks source link

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

Open rhagenson opened 4 years ago

rhagenson commented 4 years ago

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 commented 4 years ago

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 commented 4 years ago

@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.