Fail 'jf scan' when a wrong flag is provided after command's arguments

[eranturgeman]

• The pull request is targeting the dev branch.
• The code has been validated to compile successfully by running go vet ./....
• The code has been formatted properly using go fmt ./....
• All static analysis checks passed.
• All tests have passed. If this feature is not already covered by the tests, new tests have been added.
• All changes are detailed at the description. if not already covered at JFrog Documentation, new documentation have been added.

---

The 'jf scan' command should be executed in the following manner: jf scan [command options] OR jf scan [command options] --spec=.
If the command was written in a different order: jf scan [command options], it may lead that some flags are mistaken as arguments and are not going through the command's flags verifications. Therefore, if a wrong flag was provided in this manner - it will get skipped completely without informing the customer.
I added a warning to indicate the wrong usage and what it may cause.
The indication comes in a Warning form and not error in order to not breaking customers.

[attiasas]

Nice, take a look at my comments

[hadarshjfrog]

does docker scan uses the same flow as ScanCmd? or should implement it there too?

[eranturgeman]

No, it is using dockerCmd that resides in CLI. I initiated another PR to ecosystem:
jfrog/jfrog-cli#2686

[eranturgeman]

@hadarshjfrog Since resolving the same issue in 'jf docker scan' should be done by Ecosystem and this is not a top priority for them. Since this is not going to happen soon and I dont want to miss the fix Iv'e already worked on im proceeding without 'jf docker scan' and we can open a ticket for the Ecosystem about this

[hadarshjfrog]

Please add integration tests you think might simulate it - with the common mistakes we have seen (flags at the end instead of beginning, watch/license instead of watches/licenses

[github-actions]

---

🐸 JFrog Frogbot

[github-actions]

Merging this branch will not change overall coverage

Impacted Packages	Coverage Δ	🤖
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security	0.00% (ø)
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/cli	0.00% (ø)
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/utils	0.00% (ø)

---

Coverage by file

Changed files (no unit tests)

Changed File	Coverage Δ	Total	Covered	Missed	🤖
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/cli/scancommands.go	0.00% (ø)	0	0	0
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/utils/utils.go	0.00% (ø)	0	0	0

Please note that the "Total", "Covered", and "Missed" counts above refer to code statements instead of lines of code. The value in brackets refers to the test coverage of that file in the old version of the code.

Changed unit test files

• github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/scans_test.go