Add new command to list flags for documentation

[omerap12]

What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation
/kind feature

-->

What this PR does / why we need it:
Adds list-flags command to print flag details directly.
usage:

./ingress2gateway list-flags

Output:

 
### `print` command

+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+--------------------------------+
|            FLAG             | DEFAULT VALUE | REQUIRED |          DESCRIPTION           |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+--------------------------------+
| all-namespaces              | false         | false    | If present, list the           |
|                             |               |          | requested object(s) across     |
|                             |               |          | all namespaces. Namespace in   |
|                             |               |          | current context is ignored     |
|                             |               |          | even if specified with         |
|                             |               |          | --namespace.                   |
| input-file                  |               | true     | Path to the manifest file.     |
|                             |               |          | When set, the tool will        |
|                             |               |          | read ingresses from the file   |
|                             |               |          | instead of reading from the    |
|                             |               |          | cluster. Supported files are   |
|                             |               |          | yaml and json.                 |
| namespace                   |               | true     | If present, the namespace      |
|                             |               |          | scope for this CLI request.    |
| openapi3-backend            |               | true     | Provider-specific: openapi3.   |
|                             |               |          | The name of the backend        |
|                             |               |          | service to use in the          |
|                             |               |          | HTTPRoutes.                    |
| openapi3-gateway-class-name |               | true     | Provider-specific: openapi3.   |
|                             |               |          | The name of the gateway class  |
|                             |               |          | to use in the Gateways.        |
| openapi3-gateway-tls-secret |               | true     | Provider-specific: openapi3.   |
|                             |               |          | The name of the secret for the |
|                             |               |          | TLS certificate references in  |
|                             |               |          | the Gateways.                  |
| output                      | yaml          | true     | Output format. One of: (json,  |
|                             |               |          | yaml).                         |
| providers                   | []            | true     | If present, the tool will      |
|                             |               |          | try to convert only resources  |
|                             |               |          | related to the specified       |
|                             |               |          | providers, supported values    |
|                             |               |          | are [apisix gce ingress-nginx  |
|                             |               |          | istio kong openapi3].          |
+-----------------------------+---------------+----------+--------------------------------+

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

As part of issue #162, we're adding a new command to list flags for documentation. This will aid in automating the process of generating a list of available flags for creating a README.md file.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

None

[levikobi]

Hi @omerap12, sorry for the long delay.
This looks great, thank you!

/lgtm
/cc @LiorLieberman @mlavacca

[omerap12]

Hi @omerap12, sorry for the long delay. This looks great, thank you!

/lgtm /cc @LiorLieberman @mlavacca

sure, no problem :)

[mlavacca]

Thanks for this PR, @omerap12!

Even if the addition of such a flag is valuable and something I like us to have, the original issue was about a slightly different topic: we need to generate such a list of flags and with some machinery include it in our README here.

[omerap12]

Thanks for this PR, @omerap12!

Even if the addition of such a flag is valuable and something I like us to have, the original issue was about a slightly different topic: we need to generate such a list of flags and with some machinery include it in our README here.

Hey, I understand your point. My intention was to add this flag to enable automated generation of the README.md (saving the output to a file when the flag is called). I wanted to break this into smaller steps rather than submitting a large PR all at once. I can continue with this approach if you allow me to. :)

[LiorLieberman]

/assign @mlavacca
/cc @mlavacca

[mlavacca]

Thanks for this PR, @omerap12!
Even if the addition of such a flag is valuable and something I like us to have, the original issue was about a slightly different topic: we need to generate such a list of flags and with some machinery include it in our README here.

Hey, I understand your point. My intention was to add this flag to enable automated generation of the README.md (saving the output to a file when the flag is called). I wanted to break this into smaller steps rather than submitting a large PR all at once. I can continue with this approach if you allow me to. :)

I saw no mention about this approach neither in the PR description nor in the code, so I assumed this was the contribution to fix #162. Splitting this task into sub-tasks sounds good to me, but I ask you to clarify such in the PR description and to change "fixes #issue" to something like "part of #issue", otherwise the issue will be closed by the merge of this PR.

[omerap12]

Thanks for this PR, @omerap12!
Even if the addition of such a flag is valuable and something I like us to have, the original issue was about a slightly different topic: we need to generate such a list of flags and with some machinery include it in our README here.

Hey, I understand your point. My intention was to add this flag to enable automated generation of the README.md (saving the output to a file when the flag is called). I wanted to break this into smaller steps rather than submitting a large PR all at once. I can continue with this approach if you allow me to. :)

I saw no mention about this approach neither in the PR description nor in the code, so I assumed this was the contribution to fix #162. Splitting this task into sub-tasks sounds good to me, but I ask you to clarify such in the PR description and to change "fixes #issue" to something like "part of #issue", otherwise the issue will be closed by the merge of this PR.

Yes, you are right sorry about that. fixing it now

[mlavacca]

Thanks for this PR, @omerap12!
Even if the addition of such a flag is valuable and something I like us to have, the original issue was about a slightly different topic: we need to generate such a list of flags and with some machinery include it in our README here.

Hey, I understand your point. My intention was to add this flag to enable automated generation of the README.md (saving the output to a file when the flag is called). I wanted to break this into smaller steps rather than submitting a large PR all at once. I can continue with this approach if you allow me to. :)

I saw no mention about this approach neither in the PR description nor in the code, so I assumed this was the contribution to fix #162. Splitting this task into sub-tasks sounds good to me, but I ask you to clarify such in the PR description and to change "fixes #issue" to something like "part of #issue", otherwise the issue will be closed by the merge of this PR.

Yes, you are right sorry about that. fixing it now

No worries, and thanks again for this contribution!

[omerap12]

Thanks for this PR, @omerap12!
Even if the addition of such a flag is valuable and something I like us to have, the original issue was about a slightly different topic: we need to generate such a list of flags and with some machinery include it in our README here.

Hey, I understand your point. My intention was to add this flag to enable automated generation of the README.md (saving the output to a file when the flag is called). I wanted to break this into smaller steps rather than submitting a large PR all at once. I can continue with this approach if you allow me to. :)

I saw no mention about this approach neither in the PR description nor in the code, so I assumed this was the contribution to fix #162. Splitting this task into sub-tasks sounds good to me, but I ask you to clarify such in the PR description and to change "fixes #issue" to something like "part of #issue", otherwise the issue will be closed by the merge of this PR.

Yes, you are right sorry about that. fixing it now

No worries, and thanks again for this contribution!

It’s my pleasure! :) I’ll adjust the code according to your review later.

[k8s-ci-robot]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: omerap12
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from mlavacca. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[omerap12]

should I set this?

table.SetRowLine(true)

[LiorLieberman]

/cc @mlavacca for review

[k8s-ci-robot]

@LiorLieberman: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: for, review.

Note that only kubernetes-sigs members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

/cc @mlavacca for review

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[LiorLieberman]

/assign
/cc

[mlavacca]

Hi @omerap12, I somehow missed this PR, sorry about that.

I know you implemented this after my suggestion, but after a thorough look, using this table does not make much sense to me: we want it to be used in a .md file, therefore it should be proper .md code, and not this custom terminal-oriented format.

I think your first implementation was in the right direction, we just need to find a way to avoid the hardcoded formatting. Apologise for all the back and forth on this.

[omerap12]

Hi @omerap12, I somehow missed this PR, sorry about that.

I know you implemented this after my suggestion, but after a thorough look, using this table does not make much sense to me: we want it to be used in a .md file, therefore it should be proper .md code, and not this custom terminal-oriented format.

I think your first implementation was in the right direction, we just need to find a way to avoid the hardcoded formatting. Apologise for all the back and forth on this.

Sure, no problem. Could you please provide an example of how you'd like the output to look?

[mlavacca]

Hi @omerap12, I somehow missed this PR, sorry about that.
I know you implemented this after my suggestion, but after a thorough look, using this table does not make much sense to me: we want it to be used in a .md file, therefore it should be proper .md code, and not this custom terminal-oriented format.
I think your first implementation was in the right direction, we just need to find a way to avoid the hardcoded formatting. Apologise for all the back and forth on this.

Sure, no problem. Could you please provide an example of how you'd like the output to look?

Your first implementation was in the right direction, we just need to find a good way not to have hardcoded table formatting, as it can lead to many problems.

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

• Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale