Forward a range of ports with the `port-forward` subcommand

[sharkymark]

A community user with multiple users in their deployment reported a feature request to improve the port-forward experience.

Right now, you have to enter --tcp or --udp for each port.

The request, and their requirement, is 100+ ports and they want it much simpler.

Example implementations suggested are:

A file with a list of ports
Or just removing the repetitive --tcp or --udp flag

[kylecarbs]

I think a syntax like:

$ coder port-forward dev --tcp 3000-9000

would be awesome!

[f0ssel]

I think a syntax like:

$ coder port-forward dev --tcp 3000-9000

would be awesome!

Agreed, that's also the same syntax AWS uses to specify ranges for ports in security groups.

[MarcoSaba]

Sarco from Discord here, the range would be cool. But there could be a case where not all the ports included in the range must be forwarded.

For example, i need 4000 4005 and 4010. Not really useful to forward range from 4000 to 4010.

[mafredri]

As discussed in Discord, we could allow additional ports in a single --tcp or --udp via comma separated values. This could look like --tcp 4000,4005,4010 or even be combined with the range, i.e. --tcp 3000-9000,9050,9060,9090-9099.

We probably shouldn't (to keep it simple), but if we wanted to consider allowing white-space (space, newline, tab?) separation (in addition to ,?) we could support use-cases like --tcp "$(<tcp_ports.txt)" where each port is on their own line or space-separated.