Refactor search.

[reitermarkus]

• Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same change?
• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
• Have you written new tests for your changes? Here's an example.
• Have you successfully run brew style with your changes locally?
• Have you successfully run brew tests with your changes locally?

---

Refactor search to use CLI::Parser.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Is .any? and ! .empty? identical performance wise? I was under the impression the latter was more performant (although that could be a Railism, creeping in)

[reitermarkus]

Seems like it, I didn't know about that.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Trying to avoid adding more of these: #4059

[MikeMcQuaid]

Could stick each . on a new line if refactoring here anyway?

[MikeMcQuaid]

if/else is a bit more readable here.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Make a block if for a shorter line

[MikeMcQuaid]

stick the .join on a new line?

[MikeMcQuaid]

next unless args to shorten the line (and maybe a few variables)

[MikeMcQuaid]

What's the latter []?

[reitermarkus]

#4253 (comment)

[MikeMcQuaid]

unless block form for a shorter line

[MikeMcQuaid]

These feel a bit weird. Maybe return a Hash?

[reitermarkus]

A Hash cannot be destructed as nicely. Eventually this should be used like this:

remote_formulae, remote_casks = search_taps(query)

[MikeMcQuaid]

@reitermarkus I think given they are arrays a {formulae: [], casks: []} is a nicer interface for the consumer. It's not obvious from the naming that search_taps provides two arrays of arrays as results.

[JCount]

I know this code isn't directly part of this refactor, but may it make sense to make it more closely match the above syntax? Any thoughts @MikeMcQuaid?

[reitermarkus]

@GauthamGoli, do we even need this? We are using OptionParser only to parse arguments and not to display descriptions.

[MikeMcQuaid]

@GauthamGoli Given we're not using descriptions anywhere yet I'd be 👍 in deleting the description code until it's used (or using it in some places now)

[JCount]

👍 For removal if it's not being utilized.

[MikeMcQuaid]

It seems from #4271 (comment) it will be used very shortly so let's leave it as-is for now.

[GauthamGoli]

Sorry. I missed this notification. Yeah. I'll be working on this shortly, don't remove it.

[JCount]

Change this to one line?

[MikeMcQuaid]

Thanks again @reitermarkus! 🚢 when ready.

[JCount]

👍 Good work, @reitermarkus