Cannot write .conflicts("option-name"); we should write like .conflicts("optionName") ?

[wataash]

// this is INVALID
program
  .addOption(new Option('--option-a').conflicts('option-b'))
  .addOption(new Option('--option-b'))

// this works
program
  .addOption(new Option('--option-a').conflicts('optionB'))
  .addOption(new Option('--option-b'))

Is it intended design? I think .conflicts('option-b')) is natural.

[wataash]

And I think giving the leading hyphens (.conflicts('--option-b'))) is also natural, should be accepted.

[shadowspawn]

Reasonable question. This is intended design, the conflicting option is identified by the camelCase option name. This is the same pattern used with the other routines passed an option identifier, like .getOptionValue().

This is not mentioned in the README but is included in the example file: https://github.com/tj/commander.js/blob/master/examples/options-conflicts.js

( Supporting the option flags would lead to some additional questions. If you were allowed to use the long flag, would you also be allowed to use the short flag? Would you need to list both to cover both flags?)

[shadowspawn]

I was actually thinking we might use raw option originally as the key, but when I saw camelCase used in the development of the feature I liked it much better.

#1678 (comment)

[wataash]

Thanks for the explanation!
Sorry, I didn't see the example file.
It's OK if it's the intended -- I just wondered this specification was just out of consideration.
I understood using camelCase is the consistent way in the commander API/implementation.

[wataash]

If you were allowed to use the long flag, would you also be allowed to use the short flag? Would you need to list both to cover both flags?

At least Option('-v') should be identified as -v.

But, as you said, there's room for debate how to identify Option(' -v, --verbose ')...
Personally I prefer accepting all of these:

• -v
• --verbose
• (SPACE)-v(SPACE)
• (SPACE)-v , --verbose(SPACE)

because it's obvious that the user (developer) is trying to select the -v option. There's no other way to interpret.

UPDATE: I noticed it was not that simple when thinking about Option(-v, --verbose <count>) or any other style...