plugin with opt option install start dir

[glepnir]

• nvim --version: latest
• git --version: latest
• Operating system/version: macos
• Terminal name/version: kitty

Steps to reproduce

use({
  'kristijanhusak/vim-dadbod-ui',
  cmd = { 'DBUIToggle', 'DBUIAddConnection', 'DBUI', 'DBUIFindBuffer', 'DBUIRenameBuffer' },
  config = conf.vim_dadbod_ui,
  requires = {'tpope/vim-dadbod', opt = true },
})

Actual behaviour

vim_dadobd installed in start_dir

Expected behaviour

install in opt_dir

[EdenEast]

There are two types of plugin specs, Simple specs that are just a string and Complex ones that are a table containing optional values.

requires takes either a string for a single simple plugin or a table for a list of plugins. Since you are passing a table, packer is using that table as a list of plugins to require. Wrapping your complex plugin spec in another table will create a list of one complex plugin. This will solve your issue.

use({
  'kristijanhusak/vim-dadbod-ui',
  cmd = { 'DBUIToggle', 'DBUIAddConnection', 'DBUI', 'DBUIFindBuffer', 'DBUIRenameBuffer' },
  config = conf.vim_dadbod_ui,
  requires = {{'tpope/vim-dadbod', opt = true }},
})

[glepnir]

I used this before. but i don't know this logic if its a table with opt. it should be in opt dir. why it must be work with table in table? also test with

use({ 'plugin', opt = true})

[akinsho]

@glepnir the original example for the issue description would probably never worked exactly right, i.e. it would likely have always been an issue. I think packer already goes overboard to provide loads of variations for input, e.g. you can supply requires = {"a/list", "of/strings"} or requires = "single/string" or requires = {{'more/complex', config = "blah"}, {'list/of', setup = 'foo'}} I think it's reasonable to not try to cover every single possible mechanism and just have a list

The example you mention above is totally different. use({ 'plugin', opt = true}) is a single argument directly passed to use whereas what you are trying to do is pass a child plugin spec inside a requires key.

Packer would then have the fun job of disambiguating between an "object" or a "list" which tbh can be done with vim.tbl_islist but I really think for sanity and testing purposes the current number of patterns is more than enough.

[EdenEast]

I agree with @akinsho, the manage function is already complex enough. If anything packer should become simpler as I have found that this is an area where there is a lot of confusion.

[glepnir]

If a function would become more complex. But there are still situations that cannot be handled. I'm more inclined to think that the design of this function is wrong . And I think it's a long-standing bug? It's just that I discovered it recently. I don't understand this logic. Because the function will get complicated without fixing the bug. Will judging these situations be complicated? I don't think so . Not a big deal. If you don't think it's necessary. I can close. Or I can make a plugin manager of my own. that would be a good start too

requires = {"a/list", "of/strings"} or requires = "single/string" or requires = {{'more/complex', config = "blah"}, {'list/of', setup = 'foo'}}

[akinsho]

But there are still situations that cannot be handled. I'm more inclined to think that the design of this function is wrong

I'm not sure this logic is valid personally, I think if you invert this logic then every function that doesn't handle every scenario is wrong?

Anyway I don't speak for packer, I was simply chiming in to suggest that this is to my mind a very minor issue, all you need to do is wrap the requires with {} and carry on tbh. I don't think this needs to be fixed, but @wbthomason might disagree 🤷🏿‍♂️, certainly not more urgently than other things.

If you want to make a plugin manager this is very much your prerogative, a bit tangential here though. If other people think this is worth fixing, then feel free to raise a PR.

[glepnir]

{ { plugin opt = true} } ...don't know this logic .if only have one you must be write like this. it's wired 😄 . Project is a little bloated. So I probably won't look at the relevant code to send any pr .closed

[wbthomason]

I agree with @akinsho and @EdenEast here: early influence on packer pushed us toward going to significant lengths to allow probably too many different input formats, which has increased complexity/bloat and led to annoying edge cases like this. I would say that this is "working as expected", for the reason that @EdenEast mentions, but I agree that it's annoying.

I took a look at a fix and it seemed simple enough without adding much more complexity to manage, so I made #1041. If that fixes this issue for you, that's great.

In general, I do want to slim packer. It's become a large, fairly unpleasant codebase due to feature creep. I've made some headway on this in the refactor/packer-v2 branch, but that's been stalled because I haven't had time for OSS work in quite a while. I also still owe @akinsho and others a roadmap for the rewrite to help distribute the work. If you're interested in contributing to this semi-clean-slate work, please let me know.

[EdenEast]

@wbthomason I would like to help contribute to this cleanup / v2 effort. I am able to put resources into OSS and would like to contribute to packer.

[wbthomason]

Thank you! I finally got around to writing a very first-draft roadmap for the rewrite: https://github.com/wbthomason/packer.nvim/blob/refactor/packer-v2/ROADMAP.md

It needs fleshing out and probably other revisions, but hopefully this is enough to start a conversation on how others can help contribute to the rewrite effort.