Support compopt in completion functions (Sourcery refactored)

[sourcery-ai]

Pull Request #78 refactored by Sourcery.

Since the original Pull Request was opened as a fork in a contributor's
repository, we are unable to create a Pull Request branching from it.

To incorporate these changes, you can either:

1. Merge this Pull Request instead of the original, or

2. Ask your contributor to locally incorporate these commits and push them to
   the original Pull Request

   Incorporate changes via command line

   git fetch https://github.com/iterative/shtab pull/78/head
   git merge --ff-only FETCH_HEAD
   git push

NOTE: As code is pushed to the original Pull Request, Sourcery will
re-run and update (force-push) this Pull Request with new refactorings as
necessary. If Sourcery finds no refactorings at any point, this Pull Request
will be closed automatically.

See our documentation here.

Run Sourcery locally

Reduce the feedback loop during development by using the Sourcery editor plugin:

• VS Code
• PyCharm

Help us improve this pull request!

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

Merging this PR leaves code quality unchanged.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	46.94 ⛔	46.94 ⛔	0.00
Method Length	135.50 😞	135.60 😞	0.10 👎
Working memory	1.75 ⭐	1.75 ⭐	0.00
Quality	25.94% 😞	25.94% 😞	0.00%

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	761	768	7

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
shtab/init.py	25.94% 😞	25.94% 😞	0.00%

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
shtab/init.py	get_bash_commands	78 ⛔	587 ⛔		1.23% ⛔	Refactor to reduce nesting. Try splitting into smaller methods
shtab/init.py	complete_zsh	62 ⛔	894 ⛔		2.38% ⛔	Refactor to reduce nesting. Try splitting into smaller methods
shtab/init.py	complete_tcsh	53 ⛔	467 ⛔		5.02% ⛔	Refactor to reduce nesting. Try splitting into smaller methods
shtab/init.py	complete_bash	2 ⭐	105 🙂	11 😞	64.43% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions
shtab/init.py	add_argument_to	4 ⭐	88 🙂	11 😞	64.81% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #79 (030ec20) into master (cf19980) will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 71.42%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #79      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.04%   90.99%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         335      333       -2     
==========================================
- Hits          305      303       -2     
  Misses         30       30              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
shtab/__init__.py	93.70% <71.42%> (-0.05%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update cf19980...030ec20. Read the comment docs.

[omesser]

@0x2b3bfa0 - what's the history and current approach behind sourcery-ai bot?
I don't see it used that much - should we close this (and anything else issued by it)? or do you think we should double down on it?

[0x2b3bfa0]

I believe @casperdcl enabled this in September 2021, but don't have any additional context. Not sure if it's worth the noise, albeit the f-strings suggestion on this pull request was nice. 🤷‍♂️

[omesser]

@0x2b3bfa0 - opened #135 in your honour.
Closing all sourcery PRs

🧹 🧹 🧹