🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: f571523

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

Open in StackBlitz

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@opennextjs/cloudflare@1097

commit: f571523

oof... I guess I need to also instruct yargs to ignore the flags we forward to wrangler 😓
https://github.com/opennextjs/opennextjs-cloudflare/actions/runs/21395938691/job/61594141196?pr=1097#step:6:31

oof... I guess I need to also instruct yargs to ignore the flags we forward to wrangler 😓 opennextjs/opennextjs-cloudflare/actions/runs/21395938691/job/61594141196?pr=1097#step:6:31

I guess that's a result of where .strictCommands() is used perhaps?

I guess that's a result of where .strictCommands() is used perhaps?

No, I think that only checks commands and that's not the issue here 🤔

maybe...? but without it passing wrong stuff to the opennext CLI doesn't trigger the error message 😓

Just pushed a change that should get the args working properly.

There's a couple things at play now:

• we're asking yargs to treat unknown options as args instead of failing, and so yargs was treating them like positionals.
• there's a syntax for "variadic positional arguments" that we weren't using that would turns the unrecognised flags into args.
• since we're still stripping out the -- separator, all unrecognised flags that are treated as positionals should now get parsed into an args array.

You can see the args ending up in the expected properties in the below screenshot:

Hmm I guess I broke something else with the e2es 😅 Should be working now.

Thanks for the fix @james-elicx 🙂

With your fix I think that things are a bit un-ideal since any flag passed to a command won't trigger any error/warning, however I don't think we can reasonably do much better given how the CLI accepts arguments

Looks good to me 🙂👍

@dario-piotrowicz

I won't at time to look at this before at least tomorrow.
Feel free to merge unless you think I really need to look at this.
Thanks!

The current changes look ok... one small thing I noticed is that providing a wrong flag like --test-123 errors saying Unknown command instead of Unknown argument:

I'm not sure why... it's probably not a huge deal, this is definitely more helpful that the current behavior, so I'd say that this is ok and we can possibly improve it as a followup

what do you think @james-elicx?

The current changes look ok... one small thing I noticed is that providing a wrong flag like --test-123 errors saying Unknown command instead of Unknown argument:

I'm not sure why... it's probably not a huge deal, this is definitely more helpful that the current behavior, so I'd say that this is ok and we can possibly improve it as a followup

what do you think @james-elicx?

It's because unknown-options-as-args treats them as positionals instead of erroring from what i understand.