feat: validate input on run

[vladfrangu]

Closes #66

Still waiting on https://apify.slack.com/archives/G0134LE0JUB/p1714484758429109

[B4nan]

some tests would be nice, otherwise looking good

[jancurn]

Thanks @vladfrangu

@netmilk please did you review this is consistent with the new CLI design?

Guys, please assign Adam as reviewers to all PRs related to CLI, to ensure consistency with the new design

[jancurn]

Comment would be good

[jancurn]

Comments please, especially for exported functions

[vladfrangu]

I'll add these in a follow up PR

[netmilk]

EDIT: Disregard this comment. This comment below is on a different topic. It belongs here: #577. Many apologies.

@jancurn Yes, I've validated it in the E2E product vise. The flags interface design follows the new design style guide. But I've just noticed that piping to stidn without a flag as an alias to --input-file=- seems undocumented. Is it @vladfrangu, or am I missing it somewhere?

$ jo usernames[]=netmilk | apify call netmilk/sherlock
Run: Calling Actor netmilk/sherlock (sSuwVmyjxzabXcoMh)
2024-07-01T15:26:11.619Z ACTOR: Pulling Docker image of build ASIrG38fzQ3FLo0YO from repository.
2024-07-01T15:26:26.570Z ACTOR: Creating Docker container.
2024-07-01T15:26:26.740Z ACTOR: Starting Docker container.
...

$ apify call --help
...
FLAGS
...
  -i, --input=<value>            Optional JSON input to be given to the Actor.
...
      --input-file=<value>       Optional path to a file with JSON input to be given to the Actor. The file must be a valid JSON file. You can
                                 also specify `-` to read from standard input.

However, the canonical call command itself is supposed to be under the $ apify actors namespace in the future CLI design, and the call on root is going to be an alias to that.

Note to self: That reminds me we should create a milestone and a plan for the transformation to the "new CLI design" and make the design a public, living document here in this repo.

[vladfrangu]

This PR was before our discussion about stdin flags @netmilk, I will fix it today in a subsequent release. Also this is about the run command, not the call command

[netmilk]

@vladfrangu @jancurn Darn, my bad. 🤦‍♂️ Silly. Apologies. I'll look into it.

[netmilk]

@vladfrangu I need help figuring out whether this is even changing the interface. I assume it doesn't. But apart from that, it works as expected. Thank you!

Shall we consider returning the JSON path (pointer) to the INPUT data structure in the error message in case it isn't flat? It's going to be hard to figure out which part of the input is failing the validation otherwise.

$ jo foo=bar | apify run
    Error: The input in your storage is invalid. Please fix the following errors:
      - Field awesome is required
$ echo $?
1

$ apify run --input=$(jo foo=bar)
    Error: The input provided is invalid. Please fix the following errors:
      - Field awesome is required

$ jo foo=bar > invalid.json && apify run --input-file=invalid.json
    Error: The input provided is invalid. Please fix the following errors:
      - Field awesome is required

$ apify run --input-file=invalid.json 2> error | cat -
$ cat invalid.json | apify run --input-file=-
Error: Cannot read input file at path "/Users/netmilk/projects/apify-cli-validate/test-input-validation-actor/-".
  ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/Users/netmilk/projects/apify-cli-validate/test-input-validation-actor/-'
$ echo $?
5

$ apify run --input-file=invalid.json 2> error
$ cat error
    Error: The input provided is invalid. Please fix the following errors:
      - Field awesome is required

I've noticed one minor thing, though. The --input-file=-' doesn't work the same way it does in the call` command, can you fix that for the sake of consistency, please?

[vladfrangu]

Yep, that's the plan for today, could you maybe also make an issue for this so we have it fully tracked? 🙏