[FIX] is_option_set: match both long and short ids

[eseiler]

To-do

• Decide whether to merge
• Cleanup
• Try to handle short/long IDs better

Problem

sharg::parser parser{"test_parser", 5, argv, sharg::update_notifications::off};
parser.add_option(option_value, sharg::config{.short_id = 'b', .long_id = "bar"});
parser.add_option(option_value, sharg::config{.short_id = 'l', .long_id = "loo"});
parser.add_option(option_value, sharg::config{.short_id = 'f', .long_id = "foobar"});

When calling ./parser_test -b blah:

parser.is_option_set('-b'); // True
parser.is_option_set("--bar"); // False

This is quite unintuitive and has already caused me trouble.
A workaround is of course

parser.is_option_set('-b') || parser.is_option_set("--bar");

But this relies on the user to get the short/long ID pairing correct.

Solution
Store short/long ID as a pair. When calling is_option_set, we can search for both short and long ID.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
sharg-parser	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Apr 9, 2024 11:32am

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.27%. Comparing base (39f65a4) to head (c1d0aea).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #226      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.10%   95.27%   +0.17%     
==========================================
  Files          18       19       +1     
  Lines        1735     1777      +42     
==========================================
+ Hits         1650     1693      +43     
+ Misses         85       84       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[smehringer]

So I'm in favour of this change, even if its an API break (right?)

[eseiler]

So I'm in favour of this change, even if its an API break (right?)

Shouldn't break API as all the ID handling is internal. It does change the API in the sense that the behavior is fixed :D

[smehringer]

So I'm in favour of this change, even if its an API break (right?)

Shouldn't break API as all the ID handling is internal. It does change the API in the sense that the behavior is fixed :D

Yeah I guess :) I try to think about cases where people deliberately distinguish between short and long id.. but I can't find an actual use case.