rm for single container

[MOTORIST]

Hi!
Usage rm:
rm [options] [SERVICE...]

Why not?

export const rm = function (options?: IDockerComposeOptions, container?: string): Promise<IDockerComposeResult>;

[AlexZeitler]

@MOTORIST 👋

Did you try putting the service name at the last entry of options.commandOptions?
If this doesn't do the trick:

Would you mind sending a PR including a test?

container should be service

export const rm = function (options?: IDockerComposeOptions, service?: string): Promise<IDockerComposeResult>;

Maybe it might make sense to allow 1..n services to be rmed.

@Steveb-p Thoughts/Comments?

[Steveb-p]

Sure, why not.

export const rm = function (options?: IDockerComposeOptions, ...services: string[]): Promise<IDockerComposeResult>;

or

export const rm = function (options?: IDockerComposeOptions, services: string | string[]): Promise<IDockerComposeResult>;

or

export const rm = function (options?: IDockerComposeOptions, services: string[]): Promise<IDockerComposeResult>;

depending on your preference.

Destructuring seems more docker-compose-like. Allows passing a single-string service or multiple without requiring internal type checks in function. All we will need to check is if services.length > 0.

[MOTORIST]

Did you try putting the service name at the last entry of options.commandOptions

No, this not expected behavior

Maybe?

export const rmOne = function (service: string, options?: IDockerComposeOptions): Promise<IDockerComposeResult>

@Steveb-p suggested a more flexible solution.

[AlexZeitler]

I would prefer the destructuring approach.

[Steveb-p]

There were not tests against rm function actually. Also, commandOptions have to have "-s", otherwise running containers will not be stopped.

[AlexZeitler]

@Steveb-p thanks for your PR. 📦 docker-compose@0.23.4 is released on npm.