Highlight signature of flux-commands

[TobiasNx]

The signature is the central info when constructing an FLUX workflow it shows which input is needed and what output is created by an modul. This gives orientation which modul can be combined.
It should be highlighted so one can combiner flux moduls more easily.

change-id
---------
- description:	By default changes the record ID to the value of the '_id' literal (if present). Use the contructor to choose another literal as ID source.
- options:	keepidliteral (boolean), idliteral (String), keeprecordswithoutidliteral (boolean)
- signature:	StreamReceiver -> StreamReceiver
- java class:	org.metafacture.mangling.RecordIdChanger

[TobiasNx]

Ideas:

• sort all moduls by input
• split singnature to in and out
• work with color highlighting
• set as first attribute

[dr0i]

I don't understand the ideas - an example would be good.

[TobiasNx]

The idea was something like this: but I am not sure anymore.

change-id
---------
- description:	By default changes the record ID to the value of the '_id' literal (if present). Use the contructor to choose another literal as ID source.
- options:	keepidliteral (boolean), idliteral (String), keeprecordswithoutidliteral (boolean)
- in:	StreamReceiver
- out: StreamReceiver
- java class:	org.metafacture.mangling.RecordIdChanger

perhaps::

- signature: in: StreamReceiver -> out: StreamReceiver

would be enough, that would help when searching the documentation.

@dr0i what do you think?

[dr0i]

• signature: in: StreamReceiver -> out: StreamReceiver

I don't like that, structurally, because of the different meanings of : which are not self evident.
I also think - signature: StreamReceiver -> StreamReceiver is fine enough.

It seems you struggle with the semantics of signature. So maybe we just find a more self-describing word/phrase, like:

- Input/Output: StreamReceiver -> StreamReceiver

[TobiasNx]

• signature: in: StreamReceiver -> out: StreamReceiver

I don't like that, structurally, because of the different meanings of : which are not self evident. I also think - signature: StreamReceiver -> StreamReceiver is fine enough.

It seems you struggle with the semantics of signature. So maybe we just find a more self-describing word/phrase, like:

- Input/Output: StreamReceiver -> StreamReceiver

My main intention is to improve searchability.

[blackwinter]

Well, you can utilise the current syntax to search specifically for inputs (: StreamReceiver) and outputs (> StreamReceiver).

[dr0i]

Well, you can utilise the current syntax to search specifically for inputs (: StreamReceiver) and outputs (> StreamReceiver).

That's what I do, too.