Allow non-exact matching for ids in cli subcommands (New)

[Hook25]

Description

It is often bothersome, and rarely useful, to include the namespace for all ids in the checkbox-cli subcommands.

This changes them all so that any id provided will be searched both as a namespace::id and a ?::id input. This doesn't affect the user that provides the namespace, but makes it way more accessible for all users to use these tools.

Whenever this behaviour is not desirable, for whatever reason, --exact can be provided to all changed subcommands to have the old behaviour back.

Resolved issues

Fixes: https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/CHECKBOX-1951

Documentation

Documents the new --exact option

Tests

Tested new functions added (most)
Launched manually the commands with the new and old behaviour, ie.

checkbox-cli show sru
checkbox-cli show com.canonical.certification::sru
checkbox-cli show com.canonical.certification::sru --exact

should all yield the same result

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 72.41379% with 16 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 50.64%. Comparing base (ada9397) to head (0921738).
⚠️ Report is 127 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
checkbox-ng/checkbox_ng/launcher/subcommands.py	62.79%	14 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1964      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   50.55%   50.64%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         384      384              
  Lines       41116    41222     +106     
  Branches     7628     7658      +30     
==========================================
+ Hits        20786    20878      +92     
- Misses      19586    19597      +11     
- Partials      744      747       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
checkbox-ng	70.37% <72.41%> (+0.11%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[pieqq]

Tested locally, works as advertised, it's really nice! I tried it with expand, list-bootstrapped and show.

One request with regard to help and docs:

Currently, commands that take a test plan as input have an help screen that looks like this:

checkbox-cli expand -h
usage: checkbox-cli [-h] [-f FORMAT] [--exact] TEST_PLAN

Expand a given test plan: display all the jobs, templates and manifest entries that are defined in this test plan and that  would be executed if ran. This is useful to visualize the full list of units called for complex test plans that consist of many nested parts with different 'include' and 'exclude' sections.

NOTE: the elements listed here are not sorted by execution order. To see the execution order, please use the 'list-bootstrapped' command instead.

positional arguments:
  TEST_PLAN             test-plan id to expand

options:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  -f FORMAT, --format FORMAT
                        output format: 'text' or 'json' (default: text)
  --exact               only expand the test-plan that exactly matches

Can you:

• improve the help text for TEST_PLAN (for example, for above, testplan id to expand (namespace can be omitted) or something like that)
• reword the help for exact (e.g. only expand the testplan that exactly matches the given string (must include namespace))

Can you also update the tutorial page A few more Checkbox commands to explain that namespace is not necessary and to show it? (so, for instance in the list-bootstrapped example, replace list-bootstrapped com.canonical.certification::audio-cert-automated with list-bootstrapped audio-cert-automated). There is a Namespace ref in the glossary that you can point to if needed.

[fernando79513]

I've just left two small comments. Can't wait to have this in place. I've just had to write twice the com.canonical.certification this morning.

[fernando79513]

LGTM +1!

Lint check is still failing

[fernando79513]

LGTM +1!

stale