feat(macro): add group macro #267
Conversation
Adds the poise::group macro, which lets you group commands in a struct. Use `MyStruct::commands()` to get a vec of the commands.
Removes a redundant use std::vec;
Moves the body of group into a separate function and removes match in favour of ?
More direct comparison, without iter, map and format!.
Used a match over iterator items. Will now correctly handle paths with more than 2 segments.
| // let item_impl = syn::parse_macro_input!(input_item as syn::ItemImpl); | ||
| let item_impl = match syn::parse::<syn::ItemImpl>(input_item) { | ||
| Ok(syntax_tree) => syntax_tree, | ||
| Err(err) => return Err(err.into()), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a feeling this is exactly what ? does, it already calls into, but if this stops an error sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just noticing I left that comment by accident.
What I have is almost what the macro would expand into, but iirc it wouldn't return the right error type (return type may need work, a Box dyn or whatever)
macros/src/lib.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| Ok(quote! { | ||
| impl #name { | ||
| fn commands() -> Vec<Command<Data, Error>> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where are these Data and Error idents coming from? Is this just assuming something is in scope with Data and Error? There is most likely a better way to handle this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that's what I did to please the compiler, since iirc from the examples, the user should define their own Data and Error.
Maybe these can be trait bounds?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Combining this with the CommandGroup suggestion, CommandGroup could be generic over Data and Error, then this can be
pub trait CommandGroup {
type Data;
type Error;
fn commands() -> Vec<Command<Self::Data, Self::Error>>;
}
impl<D, E> CommandGroup for #name {
type Data = D;
type Error = E;
fn commands() -> Vec<Command<D, E>>;
}| slash_command: bool, | ||
| context_menu_command: Option<String>, | ||
|
|
||
| // When changing these, document it in parent file! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are these actually documented anywhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I copied that from CommandArgs, I'm not sure what it really refers to.
Edit: nvm, it's probably the doc comment on command.
I think it makes sense to leave that comment there, but I want to know how you prefer to document group:
- list all allowed attributes, which is copy pasting from
commandwith a few removals;
or - list the differences between this and
command, then add a "Refer to poise::command for a full list of attributes";
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The second option would be preferred
Instead of quote!(), use proc_macro2::TokenStream::new()
Adds the poise::group macro, which lets you group commands in a struct.
Use
MyStruct::commands()to get a vec of the commands.See the doc of poise::group for more details.
Needs more documentation and examples.