Unlock command with no package name is a bit drastic

[Vagabond]

Current behaviour

rebar3 unlock with no parameters deletes the entire lockfile.

Expected behaviour

Rebar should require some explicit flag like --all to unlock all dependencies and error out if no arguments or parameters are supplied.

[ferd]

Seems reasonable. Would it make sense (or be surprising) to change the same behaviour for rebar3 upgrade which currently takes an empty option to mean upgrade all the deps ? It'd make sense to keep that stuff symmetric.

[Vagabond]

Yes, I think so.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

@ferd, might I also suggest we apply the same to plugins upgrade in that sense?

And by "change the same behaviour" you mean add a flag as suggested by @Vagabond, right?

[ferd]

yeah, these should ideally all line up.

[joshrotenberg]

@ferd, might I also suggest we apply the same to plugins upgrade in that sense?

And by "change the same behaviour" you mean add a flag as suggested by @Vagabond, right?

In keeping with the "make them all work the same" theme, it looks like plugins upgrade only accepts a single plugin argument to upgrade whereas unlock and upgrade both accept a comma separated list. Thoughts on also adding that functionality to plugins upgrade (either as part of my incoming PR or as a separate one)?

[ferd]

updating all plugins at once might be sort of tricky (there's also rebar3 as global plugins upgrade), but if we can make the --all flag work, that's good with me.

[ferd]

Alright, sorry for the delays, I'll be merging all PRs at once so master branch is uniform for everyone.

[ferd]

Alright, I think I got them all. Thanks a whole lot for the contributions, including all docs! That's very appreciated.

[weiss]

Rebar should require some explicit flag

To be honest, I'm not fully convinced fixing the problem that rebar3 upgrade performs an upgrade really warrants a backward-incompatible change 😜