Make options consistent across CLI sub-commands

[john-h-kastner-aws]

Category

Other

Describe the feature you'd like to request

The CLI subcommands do not consistently use the same long and short names for options.

For example, most commands take a Cedar policy file as input using the --policies and -p options.

• authorize accepts only the long option --policies for the policies file. The short option -p specifies the principal.
• evaluate does not accept a policy file, instead reading expression from an argument, but does use the short option -p for the principal.
• validate accepts the long option --policies or the short options -p for policies.
• check-parse accepts --policies, -p, or policy text from standard input.
• link accepts --policies-file or -p.
• format accepts the policies file as a positional argument after any other options, or from standard input if no positional arguments are provided.

There may be other ways that the sub-commands are inconsistent.

[cdisselkoen]

I think we can consider this closed by #406? (thanks @svanderbleek)

[john-h-kastner-aws]

The format inconsistency still isn't resolved, and check-parse reads from stdin unlike most other.

[svanderbleek]

@john-h-kastner-aws That's what I was hoping to bring up discussion of, do you have an idea of how it should be fixed? Take away positional and make it by argument only for format? Remove standard input from the ones that use it or add standard input to the ones that don't? Thanks.

[john-h-kastner-aws]

IMO the stdin option only makes sense when there's only one input file (check-parse and format), so we can justify leaving these as they are, reading from stdin when there's no explicit policy file.

If we make format use -p and --policies instead of a positional argument, then I think we can call it good.