[MOAB-dev] ProgOptions recognizes negative positional arguments as options

[Grindeanu, Iulian R.]

Thanks, I can reproduce the bug, as you explained

Probably the logic should be changed, to assume that first are the required arguments, then are the optional arguments.

Not sure yet what is the right solution. 

Workaround now is to use only optional arguments :(

Other suggestions/ideas?
Iulian
 
________________________________________
From: shriwise [shriwise at wisc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:35 PM
To: Grindeanu, Iulian R.; moab-dev at mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [MOAB-dev] ProgOptions recognizes negative positional arguments as options

Iulian,

Attached is a clip from this program which exemplifies the problem.

I have 10 required double options and I use the addRequiredArg method
for each.

There is one optional argument but its location/presence doesn't seem to
matter.

The error appears in parseCommandLine. As far as I can tell, this method
tries to filter out all of the options first and assumes the remaining
arguments are required positionals.

Negative arguments seem to get picked up as options, returning an error.

Cheers,

Patrick


On 09/01/2015 01:43 PM, Grindeanu, Iulian R. wrote:
> Hi
> I am not familiar with that class, I think someone in Madison developed it
> what is your test ?
> How many "required" double options do you have?
> Do you use addRequiredArg method? How many times?
> When does the error appear? (at parsing?) Can you put the "optional" one at the end of the arguments?
>
> If you use  addOptionalArgs, do you still see that problem? (I understand you prefer "required", as it is simpler)
>
> Iulian
> ________________________________________
> From: moab-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov [moab-dev-bounces at mcs.anl.gov] on behalf of shriwise [shriwise at wisc.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 12:43 PM
> To: moab-dev at mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: [MOAB-dev] ProgOptions recognizes negative positional arguments as     options
>
> Hey all,
>
> Just noticed this when I was using this incredibly handy class to write
> a program today.
>
> I use it often, but just noticed this today. I have a series of required
> double arguments and a single option, but when I make one of the doubles
> negative, ProgOptions tries to evaluate the argument as an option and
> returns an error.
>
> In this case, I've registered one long option with the ProgOptions
> class. This error occurs whether I specify this option in the command
> line or not.
>
> I've made a few small changes so I can continue to use the class with
> negative double arguments, but it breaks many of the tests in MOAB.
>
> Is anyone more familiar with this class? If not, I can look more deeply
> into it today/tomorrow and submit a test&fix.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Patrick
>
>
> --
> Patrick C. Shriwise
> Research Fellow
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> Engineering Research Building - Rm. 428
> 1500 Engineering Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> (608) 446-8173
>

--
Patrick C. Shriwise
Research Fellow
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Engineering Research Building - Rm. 428
1500 Engineering Drive
Madison, WI 53706
(608) 446-8173