Implement yarn completion

[tbhaxor]

Description

This PR will implement yarn completion from the external vendor

Motivation and Context

Yarn is required while developing the nodejs projects and often as project grows completion is required. This PR fixes that problem.

How Has This Been Tested?

Locally by sourcing

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• If my change requires a change to the documentation, I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• If I have added a new file, I also added it to clean_files.txt and formatted it using lint_clean_files.sh.
• I have added tests to cover my changes, and all the new and existing tests pass.

[tbhaxor]

@NoahGorny @davidpfarrell could you review it and merge. I need it urgently

[davidpfarrell]

Hey ! So the .bash file doesn't match the pattern used in other vendor competions:
django.completion.bash

# shellcheck shell=bash
about-completion "django completion"
# shellcheck disable=SC1090
source "${BASH_IT}"/vendor/github.com/django/django/extras/django_bash_completion

apm.completion.bash

# shellcheck shell=bash
about-completion "apm completion"
# shellcheck disable=SC1090
source "${BASH_IT}"/vendor/github.com/vigo/apm-bash-completion/apm

jboss5.completion.bash

# shellcheck shell=bash
about-completion "jboss5 completion"
# shellcheck disable=SC1090
source "${BASH_IT}"/vendor/github.com/rparree/jboss-bash-completion/jboss5

jboss7.completion.bash

# shellcheck shell=bash
about-completion "jboss7 completion"
# shellcheck disable=SC1090
source "${BASH_IT}"/vendor/github.com/rparree/jboss-bash-completion/jboss7

Mind taking a quick pass to normalize yours?
Also wondering why 2207 vs 1090 in your case?

-D

[tbhaxor]

@davidpfarrell Any reason why arent we using git submodules?

[tbhaxor]

Also wondering why 2207 vs 1090 in your case?

Fixed lint errors

[davidpfarrell]

@davidpfarrell Any reason why arent we using git submodules?

A couple of reasons.

We sometimes need to modify the file in order to make it work within the bash-it framework ie. calling some of our functions, etc ...

We don't necessarily need to bring down the entire repo.

Bash-it doesn't currently utilize submodules outside of the testing, so regular users don't have to deal with it right now, so bringing it into the standard user experience is a big decision (imho)

[davidpfarrell]

I'm surprised the lint check didn't hit the SC1090 - Although I realize now that the other completions are dealing with it wrong ie. we should use source= instead of disabling it.

So checking the repository for the completion, I notice two things:

• This is already available in homebrew bash-completions
• This only officially supports Bash ^4.x

Not sure if any doc changes or checks should be added but wanted to call it out ...

Changes I do recommend:

• Add repo url to about - Not sure if there's a built-in meta tag for it?
• Add the SC1090 line from the examples - Not sure why its not hitting but I'm sure it will in the future and don't want to break future builds because of it.

[tbhaxor]

@davidpfarrell @NoahGorny can we merge this if everything is fine. My team is waiting for this

[davidpfarrell]

@davidpfarrell @NoahGorny can we merge this if everything is fine. My team is waiting for this

Sorry @tbhaxor my previous comment was a request-for-changes comment, re:

Changes I do recommend:

Add repo url to about - Not sure if there's a built-in meta tag for it?
Add the SC1090 line from the examples - Not sure why its not hitting but I'm sure it will in the future and don't want to break future builds because of it.

[tbhaxor]

@davidpfarrell SC1090 is not triggering on my end either, but 1091 is triggering. Do you want me to disable it also?

[davidpfarrell]

@tbhaxor Does 1091 trigger even when disable=SC1090 is present?

The two codes are related and in this case 1091 is being triggered by new-ish behavior for 1090 errors.

But it's unclear from the docs if disabling 1090 also disables 1091 in this special case.

My thought is is might so try just disabling 1090 and see if that clears ...

Alternatively you could add source=../../vendor/github.com/dsifford/yarn-completion/yarn and make shellcheck happy :)

• https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC1090
• https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC1091

[tbhaxor]

Again, where did you get it triggered or just assuming it could trigger?

[davidpfarrell]

Failing lint errors presumed fixed in #2192 which has been merged ...