Add compact option to site-uuid.

[eiriksm]

Hey guys!

Great work on this stuff!

OK, here goes:

Having psite-uuid outputting only the uuid is super useful for scripting, as pointed out in #133.

One can always bash hack around, as that issue shows. But adding an option does not break any current functionality and adds the features we all want (scripting abilities).

This patch exposes a --compact option to the command, which outputs only site uuid.

Also, the README uses psite-uuid and expects only the uuid to come back, which is not working (the example). Should be updated to, but waiting for some response on this before I send a pull request for that :)

[forssto]

+1 to get this into the master branch. Would love to not have to do any magic to get the UUID pulled into a variable.

[joshkoenig]

Sorry for lagging on this.

The only question is whether or not this is useful compared to our standard elsewhere of having output in JSON (our recommended route for scripting interactions; it's better to always pass data in some kind of buffered format) and/or whether we actually need the site name in the output under any other circumstance.

[forssto]

JSON is great and all, but as these drush interactions are pretty often used in shell scripts, JSON is a bit of a pain to interact with. If there's a chance to just return a scalar value (as is the case in site-uuid), it should definitely have the option to do so.

[joshkoenig]

Ok looking back the reason this got changed was to support multiple site-uuid inputs:

pantheon-systems/terminus@5001e22#diff-3c2b46b711ee764340a674d614c5aec8

@arshad - do you have an opinion on how best to handle this?

[eiriksm]

Just to chime in. This patch adds the --compact option, which could still exist in parallel with you guys ending up with json output as the default. It's just a feature added without breaking any functionality.

Also, if I remember correctly, the --json is what is used elsewhere in the code to get json back.

[shadcn]

Seems to be working fine with multiple site-uuid as inputs as well. Does not break any existing functionality.

[mikevanwinkle]

I merged this. I think something along these lines could be useful for many commands, i.e. specifying a format that is friendly to bash scripting. Though eventually we might instead want to adopt a --format=bash, --format=pretty,--format=compact approach.

Thanks for the contribution @eiriksm