Allow --verbose, --debug and --allow-self-signed everywhere

[agateau-gg]

Description

Click does not allow defining options across groups, this means ggshield -v secret scan path foo.py works but not ggshield secret scan path foo.py -v.

What has been done

This PR introduces a new module in cmd: common_options. This module provides an add_common_options() decorator to define Click options we want to make available anywhere on the command-line. Supported options are:

• -v, --verbose
• --debug
• --allow-self-signed

With these changes, all these commands now work and do the same thing:

ggshield -v secret scan path foo.py
ggshield secret -v scan path foo.py
ggshield secret scan -v path foo.py
ggshield secret scan path -v foo.py
ggshield secret scan path foo.py -v

In the next episode PR

I have another branch stacked on top of this one to do something similar for secret scan options like --json, --exit-zero, --show-secrets...

Issue

Part of #197

[pierrelalanne]

Looks great. I have two general remarks :

• We should be careful to add these common_options to future commands when we add them : should we document this ?
• Do you think we should add some kind of functional testing on these options' positions ? I think we should at least write the exhaustive list of commands to QA (which may be super long...)
  WDYT ?

[agateau-gg]

• We should be careful to add these common_options to future commands when we add them : should we document this ?

I agree with the idea, but I don't know a reliable place to document it, any suggestions? On the other hand cargo-culting is likely to prevent issues :)

• Do you think we should add some kind of functional testing on these options' positions ? I think we should at least write the exhaustive list of commands to QA (which may be super long...)

Testing all possible combinations sounds overkill. Maybe modifying our tests to use different positions in different tests would be good enough?

[pierrelalanne]

I agree with your second point :

Testing all possible combinations sounds overkill. Maybe modifying our tests to use different positions in different tests would be good enough?

Adding some variations in the functional tests looks wise.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #411 (a9e22b0) into main (f4cbc23) will increase coverage by 0.21%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #411      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.27%   94.49%   +0.21%     
==========================================
  Files          80       82       +2     
  Lines        3425     3521      +96     
==========================================
+ Hits         3229     3327      +98     
+ Misses        196      194       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	94.49% <100.00%> (+0.21%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
ggshield/cmd/auth/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
ggshield/cmd/auth/login.py	97.05% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
ggshield/cmd/auth/logout.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
ggshield/cmd/common_options.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
ggshield/cmd/config/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
ggshield/cmd/config/config_get.py	92.59% <100.00%> (+0.59%)	⬆️
ggshield/cmd/config/config_list.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
ggshield/cmd/config/config_migrate.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
ggshield/cmd/config/config_set.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
ggshield/cmd/config/config_unset.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 23 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[agateau-gg]

I agree with your second point :

Testing all possible combinations sounds overkill. Maybe modifying our tests to use different positions in different tests would be good enough?

Adding some variations in the functional tests looks wise.

Just did this. Going to merge when CI is happy.