Chaining AddCommand

[norrbacka]

Maybe this is possible but I just could not figure out how. But the structure I have in my real program is this:

using Cocona;
using ping_cli;
var app = CoconaApp.CreateBuilder().Build();
app.AddCommand("set-config", Commands.SetConfig());
app.AddCommand("get-config", Commands.GetConfig());
app.AddCommand("ping", Commands.Ping());
app.AddCommand("settle", Commands.SettlePaymentOrder());
app.Run();

And I would like to have it chained: (because it looks good)

using Cocona;
using ping_cli;
CoconaApp
  .CreateBuilder()
  .Build()
  .AddCommand("set-config", Commands.SetConfig())
  .AddCommand("get-config", Commands.GetConfig())
  .AddCommand("ping", Commands.Ping())
  .AddCommand("settle", Commands.SettlePaymentOrder())
  .Run();

It would be pretty cool that have it like that. But it looked not that easy to change so I did an alternate version using a new functions name AddCommands that takes an array of commands, and I made an extension method to cast it to CoconaApp so the run function could be called.

Quite ugly, and I only wrote two tests.

Do not have the time right now to do something better, so maybe take this as an suggestion rather than something actually good.

[norrbacka]

Fair warning - this is a suggestion, and not really production worthy.

If you have any pointers on how this could be achieved, or would like to add it to the backlog, or decline it from happening - that is fine :)

[norrbacka]

Okay, I got it working using an extension method:

    public static CoconaApp AddCommand(this CoconaApp app, string name, Delegate @delegate) 
    {
        _ = CommandsBuilderExtensions.AddCommand(app, name, @delegate);
        return app;
    }

So now this compiles and is confirming to work:

using Cocona;
using ping_cli;
CoconaApp
    .CreateBuilder()
    .Build()
    .AddCommand("set-config", Commands.SetConfig())
    .AddCommand("get-config", Commands.GetConfig())
    .AddCommand("ping", Commands.Ping())
    .AddCommand("settle", Commands.SettlePaymentOrder())
    .Run();

So maybe just ignore it, or add the extension method perhaps somewhere? Maybe it just me anyways, and it was quite ezy to write anyways

[mayuki]

Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your proposal.👍

I did not introduce a chain (Fluent API) for AddCommand because it is based on ASP.NET Core's Minimal APIs.
For example, AddCommand returns a builder to customize a Command, but an API to add commands to it is a bit strange.

In ASP.NET Core, the example is as follows:

app.MapGet("/hello", () => "Hello!").AllowAnonymous().WithName("Hello");
app.MapGet("/bye", () => "Bye!").RequireAuthorization().WithName("Bye");

app.MapGet("/hello", () => "Hello!")
   .AllowAnonymous()
   .WithName("Hello")
   .MapGet("/bye", () => "Bye!")
   .RequireAuthorization()
   .WithName("Bye");

app.MapGet("/foo", () => "Foo").MapGet("/bar", () => "bar");

I feel this is a bit confusing with the mapping of endpoints and their configuration mixed in.

If Cocona had an API where AddCommand itself takes a delegate for configuration, the chain can be naturally applied.

app.AddCommand("set-config", () => { ... }, options => options.Alias("sc"))
   .AddCommand("get-config", () => { ... }, options => options.Alias("gc"));

I am also concerned that the API may look to allow sub-commands to be added to the command.
However, I think a chain API like the Fluent API is worth considering, so thanks again.