src: list scripts when --run has no command

[Cherry]

This extends the behaviour when you run node --run <unknown script> that prints a list of available scripts, to now print available scripts when you simply run node --run, to mimic the behaviour of npm run, etc.

$ node --run
Available scripts are:
  test: node --test
  build: node build.js

Previously, node --run with no command errored with --run requires an argument.

This is my first contribution to Node.js so while I've tried to read and follow everything, please let me know if I'm missing anything!

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/config
• @nodejs/startup

[avivkeller]

Is there a better solution to modifying the options parser directly? We have other CLI flags that have different behavior depending on whether or not they have an argument passed?

How does --inspect do this?

[Cherry]

I'm not entirely familiar with the code, but looking at --inspect, it's a boolean option so works a bit differently I think:

node/src/node_options.cc

Lines 475 to 479 in 0bcc6ef

	AddOption("--inspect",
	"activate inspector on host:port (default: 127.0.0.1:9229)",
	&DebugOptions::inspector_enabled,
	kAllowedInEnvvar);
	AddAlias("--inspect=", { "--inspect-port", "--inspect" });

So --inspect and --inspect=1234 work, but --inspect 1234 isn't valid.

If I'm understanding correctly, --run can't do this, because it's space separated.

To avoid the hardcoded name == "--run", what would you suggest?

[avivkeller]

hmm, perhaps I was mis-remembering that --inspect required an = to run 😓. I'm still wary about changing the parser, since there probably should be a way for a flag to be passed with an optional value, regardless of =.

Sorry about misremembering, I'll ask around to see if there's a way to do this, and if not, we can always add it.

[Cherry]

thanks! It's also very possible I'm misreading this or missing something, and this is already supported somewhere - sorry if so!

[avivkeller]

I doubt that, you (so far) demonstrate a great understanding of the codebase. It's probable that we just never encountered this scenario before.

Great work so far :-)

[avivkeller]

Implementation LGTM. I'm not giving this the green check while I look into better ways of actually detecting the option-less flag, but everything from that point on is great :)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 86.20690% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (0bcc6ef) to head (cb3f4d7).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/node_options-inl.h	50.00%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
src/node_task_runner.cc	95.23%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #64606      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.14%   90.13%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         741      741              
  Lines      242080   242092      +12     
  Branches    45563    45564       +1     
==========================================
- Hits       218213   218211       -2     
- Misses      15375    15391      +16     
+ Partials     8492     8490       -2     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/node.cc	76.93% <100.00%> (ø)
src/node_options.h	98.01% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/node_task_runner.cc	89.78% <95.23%> (+0.45%)	⬆️
src/node_options-inl.h	83.51% <50.00%> (-0.19%)	⬇️

... and 37 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Cherry]

Just pushed to fix the markdown linting - looks like I needed to prepend to changes, not append, sorry!

The macOS test failure looks to be an unrelated flake, but let me know if not.