Options object is not strictly the user input

[elliot-nelson]

Take this simple program:

program
    .command('list')
    .description('lists all objects')
    .options('--name <name>', 'filter by name')
    .action(function (options) {
        // Program prints "filter enabled", even if user does not provide a value.
        console.log(options.name ? 'filter enabled' : 'filter disabled');
    })

The options object is not a raw property bag of the command line options, it is an object with some functions defined on it, one of which seems to be name, another is parent.

I feel like the API should be changed so there aren't hidden mines under certain option names -- or, at least, the documentation should make it clear what option names will conflict with these special API functions.

[shadowspawn]

This is an area we want to improve, and will be a breaking change. I have referenced this issue as one of a number of related issues.

This issue has not had any activity in over six months. It isn't likely to get acted on due to this report.

Feel free to open a new issue if it comes up again, with new information and renewed interest.

Thank you for your contributions.

[shadowspawn]

I have opened a Pull Request which allows storing option values separately rather than as command properties (access using .opts()), and passes the options (rather than the command) to the action handler.

See #1102