[1.0.0-rc2] --project-file becomes --project

Describe the bug Hello. When I run stryker on a test project pointing to several *.csproj, the command line says Test project contains more than one project reference and gives an example: Example: --project-file=C:\Users\altepe\source\repos\[Redacted].csproj.

However, running the command line with option --project-file fails because it has been updated to --project in v1.

Logs

PS C:\Users\altepe\source\repos\[Redacted].Tests> dotnet stryker
Version: 1.0.0
[11:25:43 INF] Identifying project to mutate.
[11:27:34 INF] Time Elapsed 00:01:50.7980044

Project reference issue.

Test project contains more than one project reference. Please set the project option (https://stryker-mutator.io/docs/stryker-net/configuration#project-file-name) to specify which project to mutate.
Choose one of the following references:

  C:\Users\altepe\source\repos\[Redacted].csproj
  C:\Users\altepe\source\repos\[Redacted].cli.csproj

Example: --project-file=C:\Users\altepe\source\repos\[Redacted].csproj

Expected behavior I’d like to propose two options:

1. Update documentation and command line error messages to --project instead of currently --project-file. I would favor this one. It will impact a very few lines of code. Though this would go against https://github.com/stryker-mutator/stryker-net/issues/142 and https://github.com/stryker-mutator/stryker-net/pull/129.
2. Update command line option to set it back to --project-file instead of the currently supported --project.

Which one would you recommend?

[rouke-broersma]

The configuration docs are modeled after the stryker-js and the stryker4s docs to bring them more in line with eachother. I used <> instead of [] because in my experience [] usually means optional argument and is also used for options that accept multiple arguments so I found that to be confusing.

I do agree that there is some inconsistency in the usage example given, afaik mostly on array or boolean types, but I would not go so far as to diverge from the other docs again when this was an attempt to get more in line with the rest.

Let’s start a discussion here: https://github.com/stryker-mutator/stryker-mutator.github.io/discussions That way all stryker projects can weigh in on how the configuration pages should look.

[corentinaltepe]

Thank you @philrowan-mtb. My assumption about markdown links was wrong, and the link was correct. So I did not modify it.

I agree with your proposition to restructure documentation. It would offer better clarity. Should we go for it? We’d have to search for all links to the doc to update them. Should we track this work in a separate issue ticket?