feat(choices): support questionary checkbox for multiple choices using multiple: true

[noirbizarre]

This PR is a sequel to #1049, taking into account review comments and #750 design proposal.

This PR only include the multiple: true form as the advanced form needs more specification and design I think, and it mostly relies on https://github.com/RhetTbull/questionary-superprompt#multiple-option which is not part of questionary.
However, it remains compatible as it is possible to add the advanced part later.

WDYT ?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1386 (7f97628) into master (9ea980f) will increase coverage by 0.03%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is 98.03%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1386      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.27%   97.30%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          48       48              
  Lines        4327     4423      +96     
==========================================
+ Hits         4209     4304      +95     
- Misses        118      119       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.30% <98.03%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
copier/user_data.py	95.66% <100.00%> (+0.58%)	⬆️
tests/test_prompt.py	94.47% <97.70%> (+0.99%)	⬆️

[noirbizarre]

I don't get why coverage on tests/test_tools.py changed:

• it's a test
• not related to the feature
• it has not been skipped

BTW, POE coverage commands differ from the CI one.

Why not this in CI ?:

poetry run poe coverage --cov-report=xml

This way it would be the same as locally with poe with only the xml coverage report in addition (the -ra is already in the pyproject.toml tool.pytest.ini_options.addopts setting) and tests would not be included in coverage by tests.

[noirbizarre]

#1388 should fix the unexpected coverage change

[yajo]

issue: the multiple word might seem OK as of today, but when #750 is implemented some day, it could become confusing.

This PR is about having the possibility to select multiple choices in a choices question. However, #750 is about asking the same question multiple times. In other words, the issue you're fixing is #218 instead.

Looking at https://github.com/RhetTbull/questionary-superprompt#multiple-option, it's possible that we use that solution when we implement #750. Thus, I'm afraid that using multiple now could be a shot in our own foot for the future.

So I think we should be able to rename this now, to help our future self.

WDYT about renaming this to multiselect?

Suggested change

	multiple: bool = False
	multiselect: bool = False

The same for other occurrences of this option.

FWIW, I can imagine a questionary where somebody wants to be able to make a multiselect choice multiple times (in the future, after this and #750 are implemented).

[noirbizarre]

Oh, I am OK with this, I chose multiple as this was the term chosen in #750 (#750 define 2 behaviors, multiple: true and multiple: object) and #1049.

In fact, I thought a lot about it (that's what I was implying when saying "the advanced form needs more specification and design I think") because I think part of questionnary-superprompt might also be useful for multiselect: min/max make sense in multiselect as much as it make sense in multiple prompts. Poitn being that a possible evolution of multiselect: true is the same pattern than multiple: true: allowing to defined expected boundaries.

So multiselect it is, I'll update the PR accordingly 👍🏼 (thanks for pointing #218 because I missed it)

[noirbizarre]

There it is, PR update for with multiselect.
I linked the commit to #218

[yajo]

Excellent, thanks!