-p bug #1962

[achhapolia10]

Closes #1962
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Chhapolia achhap.10.01@gmail.com

- What I did
After Fixing the bug docker command gives an appropriate result for invalid ports.

$ ./docker run -p 808080:80 node
./docker: Invalid hostPort: 808080.
See './docker run --help'.

It also allows for mixed notations for port publishing in long and short formats.

$ ./docker run -d -p 8080:80 -p target=4040,published=443 node

- How I did it
Instead of expecting the notation in the shorthand format and if it gives an error and then parsing the long format, parse all the items and checked for '=' if an item contains '=' we can surely say that its a long format. Then I converted the long formats to shorthand format.

- How to verify it
Function TestParsePublishPorts() added.
Build and tested the binaries myself. Examples are shown above.

- Description for the changelog
Fixed #1962 as suggested by @thaJeztah

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #2041 into master will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 64.28%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2041      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   56.79%   56.85%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         311      311              
  Lines       21836    21837       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        12402    12415      +13     
+ Misses       8519     8505      -14     
- Partials      915      917       +2

[achhapolia10]

#2041 closes #839 too.
Command to test it

$ ./docker run --name node -p target=4040-4042,published=4040-4042 -dit --rm node

docker ps results

CONTAINER ID        IMAGE               COMMAND                  CREATED             STATUS              PORTS                              NAMES
c7ab56f8366a        node                "docker-entrypoint.s…"   8 seconds ago       Up 6 seconds        0.0.0.0:4040-4042->4040-4042/tcp   node

[thaJeztah]

Thank you for contributing; there were a couple of pull-requests addressing the same issue, and after reviewing those, we picked #1965 (carried in #2251)

Apologies that your PR didn't get merged, but we appreciate your contribution (and hope to see future contributions 🤗 )