[Suggestion] Improve the existing commands and follow as convention: cmd domain verb

[cmoulliard]

TODO

Improve the existing commands and follow as convention: cmd domain verb which is a
a more user's friendly way to play with commands. See by example tools as: podman, docker, quarkus, etc

Examples

idp = idpbuilder

idp clusters // List the clusters
idp cluster ls // list the clusters
                  create --name // Create a new cluster
                  delete --name // Delete a cluster
idp cluster <name> // Shortcut to get the detail of a cluster => equivalent to idp cluster get <name>

If we adopt this convention, then we could also propose as commands

idp secrets => idp creds // List the packages and their credentials
      cred ls
      cred get <package_name> // List the cred of the package name
      cred update --username --password -p <package>

and for the urls (= ingress resources)

idp urls
      url ls // List the urls of the packages installed and hosted behind ingress
      url get <package_name> // List the cred of the package name

Originally posted by @cmoulliard in #445 (comment)

[nabuskey]

I would rather stick with the kubectl convention. e.g. kubectl get pods kubectl get secrets. Personally, I find that convention easier to read.

[greghaynes]

I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the command structure, I only have a strong opinion that it remain internally consistent.

[blakeromano]

No strong opinion but I agree with consistency. I also think if we are making a breaking change like redoing the CLI commands should be a target for 1.0 release.

[abangser]

+1 to consistency over which specific structure gets landed on.

It does feel like despite our best efforts to stay unsurprising to users, we already have a clear divide between kubectl (kubectl [command] [TYPE] [NAME] [flags]) vs other proposed examples (which I would translate your proposal to make it comparable as: idp [TYPE] [command]).

One thing to call out is that docker does seem to be in the command then type format given an example of docker create [OPTIONS] IMAGE [COMMAND] [ARG...]. Though I may be reading this differently than you?

Also, while I am not familiar with the codebase for this CLI, but code reuse/testability/structure should be a part of the decision so if someone more familiar can speak to that it may help decide as well.

[cmoulliard]

One thing to call out is that docker does seem to be in the command then type format given an example of docker create [OPTIONS] IMAGE [COMMAND] [ARG...]. Though I may be reading this differently than you?

docker like podman (or others) are following also the convention

CLI <DOMAIN | TYPE> <VERB>

docker container create|exec|start|stop|ls|etc
docker image pull|push|tag|save|rm|pruneetc

[nabuskey]

Changing command structure like this requires we refactor the internal cmd structure, update all documentation, update blog posts, update stacks, etc. Is the effort worth it?