This should be a reference to an anchor rather than a hardcoded file name.

I found this quite clearer but also allowed to disentangle a little the mess in the parsing function...

To the expense of some more duplication i intend to remove later (when we factor this client out and i finally take the time to take a look at how to test the cli)...

Without this, this no longer displayed anything...
Which i think you warned me a little earlier during the week ;)

This fixed both swh-deposit and swh deposit which were divergent in behavior.

I'm wondering if print would not be better here...
As the output is a dict, today, that gives for example:

INFO:swh.deposit.cli.client:{'deposit-id...}

whereas a bare dict outputed (with no noise) would be simpler to use for a client wanted to do something with the json-like output.

I guess there is also the formatter configuration route...

What do you think, could print be ok here?

How can ctx.obj not be None?

nvm, got it. What about doing this instead?

ctx.ensure_object(dict)
log_level = ctx.obj.get('log_level', logging.INFO)

Because, from my understanding of the latest refactoring on cli (swh-core), depending on how you call this, this can be populated.

That's what i meant in my first comment here about the behavior divergence between swh deposit (using swh-core inheritance, i'd expect ctx.obj not none here) and (swh-deposit, no init, i'd expect it to be none).

I tried the second line initially without and that failed.
Probably because of the missing first line which i did not add because of the swh-core 'inheritance' (<~ probably not the right term)...
This is already done there so i don't know the implication of doing it twice... (for that case).

I'll check

Thanks for the heads up.

It works, awesome.
I'll change.

I would erase the optionally and explain afterwards that you can omit the software name by adding metadata in the file. for example:

software artifact's name (optional if a metadata filepath is specified and the artifact's name is included in the metadata file).

Same as above:

author's name (optional if a metadata filepath is specified  and the authors are included in the metadata file).
This can be specified multiple times in case of multiple authors.

the client uses for the software object. If not provided, A UUID will be generated by SWH.

this is a great change!!

erase, we keep only the codemeta option (but I haven't had the time to modify it myself)

keep

erase (this does not mean we change the code, just the way we present what we want

needs=> requires

- A multipart deposit (create or update) requires:
         -an existing software compressed archive
         -an existing metadata file or authors and name provided in params

requires

requires

without ( )

metadata file or the authors and software artifact name provided in params

requires
and erase to be provided

A deposit update requires a deposit_id

Positive sentence are clearer indeed!