Addition of set_toggleable decorator for creating mutually exclusive boolean arguments

[nrhinehart]

No description provided.

[neithere]

Hi @nrhine1, thanks for the contribution. Two things:

1. Quality is extremely important. This is why I only accept pull requests and patches if comprehensive tests are included. Otherwise I'd have to write the tests first; this would significantly increase the required effort to understand and process the proposal and therefore decrease the probability that I would allocate time any soon for the issue.
2. I'm not sure that I understand the point of this PR. If you are doing mutually exclusive arguments, that's great but I didn't see it in the code (would be easier with tests). If you are just toggling booleans, doesn't Argh do it already? Again, tests would help a lot.

[nrhinehart]

Hi @neithere,

1. I've added a set of tests for the two added decorators, which should
   help clarify use cases.
2. The primary use case is to handle the fact that when a boolean is meant
   to trigger some type of action, like "do_foo" and defaults to True, then
   the only way to set it to False is to specify --do-foo, which is extremely
   counterintuitive. With the decorator, mutually exclusive arguments for
   negation can be used, and with the usage of, e.g.:

@argh.set_toggleable('--do-foo', inv_prefix = 'dont')

the user can use: --dont-do-foo
in order to flip the default and set do_foo to False ,
and additionally, using --do-foo will do what a user might expect, and set
do_foo to True.

I will close this pull request and add another that contains all of my
changes rebased into a single commit

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Andy Mikhailenko notifications@github.com
wrote:

Hi @nrhine1 https://github.com/nrhine1, thanks for the contribution.
Two things:

1. Quality is extremely important. This is why I only accept pull requests
   and patches if comprehensive tests are included. Otherwise I'd have to
   write the tests first; this would significantly increase the required
   effort to understand and process the proposal and therefore decrease the
   probability that I would allocate time any soon for the issue.
2. I'm not sure that I understand the point of this PR. If you are doing
   mutually exclusive arguments, that's great but I didn't see it in the code
   (would be easier with tests). If you are just toggling booleans, doesn't
   Argh do it already? Again, tests would help a lot.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#72 (comment).

Nick Rhinehart
Graduate Student
CMU Robotics Institute

[neithere]

Now I get the idea. Usually I just add the argument --no-foo. However, resulting statements like if not no_foo: ... in function body indeed have a negative impact on readability.