Build error on latest nightly: unknown feature array_value_iter_slice

[regexident]

Build error on latest nightly: unknown feature array_value_iter_slice

[kangalio]

Thank you! The new version immediately compiled successfully.

However, with the new version, I'm struggling to invoke it correctly. No matter what command I use after cargo modules, it always prints the same error message:

error: Found argument 'modules' which wasn't expected, or isn't valid in this context

USAGE:
    cargo-modules <SUBCOMMAND>

For more information try --help

This errors stays the same, no matter if I try cargo modules --help, cargo modules graph, or cargo modules. I also tried cargo-modules, but this command doesn't exist.

Is there something I can do to fix this argument parsing error? (Or should an issue be opened about this?)

[regexident]

Should be fixed with 0.5.0-beta.2 (I yanked 0.5.0-beta.1).

[regexident]

Hey @kangalioo and thanks for the report!

This, among many other bugs, should be fixed with 0.5.0-beta.1, which you can install via:

cargo install cargo-modules --version "0.5.0-beta.1"

[regexident]

Oh, I can vaguely remember a bug like this, which was fixed years ago. 🤔
Looks like my recent major refactoring reintroduced it.

It basically boils down to cargo passing modules as an argument to cargo-modules, rather than dropping it:

$ cargo-modules generate graph …

std::env::args => ["/path/to/cargo-modules", "generate", "graph", …]

$ cargo modules generate graph …

std::env::args => ["/path/to/cargo-modules", "modules", "generate", "graph", …]

We basically have two options to fix this:

1. Pass a cleaned-up args vector (dropping the "modules") to clap/structopt.

   Feels a bit hack-ish, but would work.

2. Add a modules umbrella root-command to structopt.

   This would probably mess with the output produced by --help, which is no good.

3. Add a positional hidden dummy argument.

   This is how it would be done in pure clap (we use structopt though):

   .arg(Arg::with_name("dummy")
       .hidden(true)
       .possible_value("modules"))

Option 3), the dummy argument would probably be the least invasive one.

[kangalio]

It works, thank you!