Fix inconsistency in commands on/off and status.

[wasndas]

The commands on/off are inconsistent, for on/off its:

@parser.command()
@click.argument("OUTLET", type=str)
@click.argument("PORTNUM", type=int, required=False)
@click.option(
    "--switch",
    type=str,
    help="Address this switch specifically. Otherwise the first switch "
    "with an outlet that matches NAME will be commanded.",
)

and for status its:

@parser.command()
@click.argument("SWITCHNAME", type=str, required=False)
@click.argument("PORTNUM", type=int, required=False)
@click.option(
    "-o",
    "--outlet",
    type=str,
    help="Print only the information for this outlet.",
)

eg:

lvmnps on skyw.pwi

and for status its:

lvmnps status -o skyw.pwi

[albireox]

I agree there's some inconsistency but I think it's for a good cause. For status I think it's more likely that one wants to get the status of all the outlets in a switch instead of an outlet. For on/off one always wants to address an outlet (I think it's very unlikely one will want to turn on/off an entire switch.

In my opinion this inconsistency is ok, but if we wanted to consolidate I would vote for keeping lvmnps on/off as it is and change lvmnps status to address an outlet by default (and change the -o flag with a -s for switch).

[wasndas]

Still, its confusing.

In the original implementation from one year ago, there was no -s and -o at all.
As it is still described in the README you could use on/off/status:

1. with the unique switch name and optional a port number.
2. with the unique port name - which should be the preferred usage.

All switch names and all port names of all switches should be unique, lvmnps took care internally if a switch (optional with port number) or a named port was addressed.

I my opinion the normal usage with on/off/status should be via unique port names, maybe multiple port names as parameters would be even better.

If a switch (and optional with a port number) has to be addressed then an option -s should be used or just revert the interface as it was.

[albireox]

Sorry for the delay replying; traveling and commissioning have kept me from LVM stuff.

I don't have a problem if you want to change the behaviour. At the end of the day most of the access will either be through other actors or via a GUI, so either solution works for me.

Not sure the current implementation is that different, though. With the exception of allowing non-unique outlet names (which I'm fine not allowing), I think the current behaviour is similar? Allowing to turn on/off multiple outlets at the same time also sounds useful.