Make it clear the "details" of command are available

[byteninjaa0]

Your checklist for this pull request

• [ yes] I've read the guidelines for contributing to this repository
• I made sure to follow the project's coding style
• I've documented or updated the documentation of every function and struct this PR changes. If not so I've explained why.
• I've added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if possible)
• I've updated the rizin book with the relevant information (if needed)

Detailed description
now when we run the w? command it will show that w?? option is also available

...

Test plan

...

Closing issues

Closes #3879

[ret2libc]

Hi and thanks for the contribution! Some comments on the PR:

• I don't think this is exactly what @XVilka meant in his bug. We would like something that would be generic and not specific to the w command. There are many other commands that have ?? available and we want to show a similar help message for all of them. That's why we have rzshell
• these cmd_descs.c/cmd_descs.h files, as you can read at the head of the files, are automatically generated from the .yaml files you can find at https://github.com/rizinorg/rizin/tree/dev/librz/core/cmd_descs . You should modify the .yaml files and re-build the project (this will update the cmd_descs.c/cmd_descs.h files).
• However, since this change should be done for all commands that have some "details" available, I believe this change should be done somewhere in cmd_api.c

[byteninjaa0]

show i do the same for other commands too?

[ret2libc]

show i do the same for other commands too?

Yes but in a general way. You should not modify the summary of each command manually.

[wargio]

please install pyaml and clang-format, then rebuild and run ./sys/clang-format.py before pushing.

[byteninjaa0]

when i am run w? it is showing the message four times .

[ret2libc]

I don't like how this looks.
IMHO something like (%s?? for more details) should be appended to the summary of the top command

[ret2libc]

Please show a screenshot of how it looks like now!

[byteninjaa0]

[ret2libc]

I think it is not working as expected yet. Like, wv? does not show the message. Or we? says to use we?? but actually only wex has details...

Now, I think given that when a command is a leaf (there are no subcommands) the details are automatically displayed (try wex?, for example), I think we can just show the message <x>?? for more details near the summary of the subcommand with the same name as the group name.

For example:

• w is both a group (w? displays the sub-commands) and a command (w?? shows the detail of the w command). In this case, it would make sense to have in the w? screen the message (w?? for more details) near the w command.

• we is the name of a group (we? shows the sub-commands), but there is no sub-command with the same name (there is no we command), thus nothing should be shown.

• wex is a leaf command, thus nothing should be shown. When you do wex? it already shows the details

• wv is both a group (wv? displays the sub-commands) and a command (wv?? shows the details of the wvcommand). In this case it would make sense to have in thewv?screen the message(wv?? for more details)near thewv` command.

I hope it make sense.

[byteninjaa0]

thank you for the detailed explanation, making a commit soon!

[wargio]

what if we do something like tree view where if there are more subcommands to it we have a + instead of | at the beginning of the line?
@ret2libc @XVilka

[ret2libc]

what if we do something like tree view where if there are more subcommands to it we have a + instead of | at the beginning of the line? @ret2libc @XVilka

Interesting ideas... We'd need to see how it looks like, but in theory I don't mind it. It would make things clearer immediately. However, it's a slightly different problem. The +/| says whether a command has some subcommands or not. The (use <cmd>?? for more details) tells you whether you should use <cmd>?? to get more info about a subcommand with the same name as the name of a group (w group and w command, for example).

[wargio]

The (use <cmd>?? for more details) tells you whether you should use <cmd>?? to get more info about a subcommand with the same name as the name of a group (w group and w command, for example).

The issue i see is that this might make the command line long.

[byteninjaa0]

[wargio]

run clang format (requires clang format 16 and then run ./sys/clang-format.py)

[byteninjaa0]

same test is failed again i am seeing into the issue i think we have to make our unit test flexible for the edited summary of subcommand

[byteninjaa0]

is there anything else left in this?

[XVilka]

is there anything else left in this?

green CI