Feat: Allow flags to support the webpack-cli

[info-arnav]

Context

The webpack-bundle-analyzer has various options such as host which are accessible via flags with reference to webpack-cli#1838. In this PR we would be trying to support these flags in the webpack-cli, like below :

webpack build --analyze --analyze-no-open

[info-arnav]

And now let's use them here - https://github.com/webpack-contrib/webpack-bundle-analyzer/blob/master/src/bin/analyzer.js#L27

there is an API - https://github.com/webpack/webpack/blob/main/lib/cli.js#L612 So:

• you require options from this file
• then use processArguments (don't forget to handle Problem)
• then use .option(...) to create all options

on it

[valscion]

What are flags?

[alexander-akait]

@valscion We need these flags to support webpack CLI - https://github.com/webpack/webpack-cli/issues/1838, so you can use webpack build --analyze --analyze-host 127.0.0.1, so you don't need to have own CLI anymore (and can drop it in the future major release) and we will provide a better and unified API for our developers, less maintance problems for you in future too

[valscion]

Thanks for the background information! It would indeed be valuable to allow this tool to be used easily through webpack CLI.

In order for me to eventually be able to review this PR, I'd need to see the least amount of changes possible. That includes:

• Not doing any unnecessary formatting changes
• Not touching dependencies in this PR (so no changes to package-lock.json)

And then we'd need these:

• Test coverage in here to verify we don't regress this feature in the future
  • The best test coverage would be one that would also use the webpack CLI so that we know the interplay between this package and webpack CLI works as intended.
  • I'm open to hearing alternatives if said test coverage is too difficult to add
• A PR description which outlines how this feature would is intended to work
• A changelog entry
• Maybe even a README.md change if such a change is warranted?

Also, I'd like to know whether this change will indeed still be backwards-compatible (that is, releasing this would be a minor version release and not a major release). If there is no other way than doing a major release then I'm also OK with that.

All in all, I do think that this feature would make sense — but I also have some wishes as the maintainer of this project before I can accept the changes. ☺️

[alexander-akait]

@valscion Yeah, I will ping you when it will be ready to review

[valscion]

Sounds nice! Thanks!

[info-arnav]

@alexander-akait shall i proceed to write the tests ?