Add no-flags, add short aliases, make aliases more consistent

[nbiederbeck]

Fixes #1738

[maxnoe]

The for loop looks strange in the class body,

it should be possible to just define flags like this, right?

flags = {
    **flag(...),
    **flag(...),
   ...
}

Also, there are some boolean flags remaining, that are not setup using flag, can you transform those as well?

[nbiederbeck]

I thought the loop is the most elegant solution because I forgot about **

[nbiederbeck]

do we want a --no-progress flag?

[maxnoe]

Yes, I think that makes sense. In case we switch the default for example. Having all boolean flags consistent and automatically negated is a big plus I'd say.

[nbiederbeck]

That leads me to another question: the should the (-f, --overwrite) flags (and e.g. (-q, --quiet)) also become negated? But only the long forms, I suppose? (e.g. no --no-f)

[maxnoe]

shortform negation doesn't make sense, correct. How does flag do shortforms?

[nbiederbeck]

afaik it doesn't. It can't handle short/long tuples, only strings. So I think we need to add a long yes/no flag and the short form we have to build ourselves

[maxnoe]

It doesn't. And it also does not make sure that only one of the flags is given.

[nbiederbeck]

What do you mean exactly? When I give --flag --no-flag it takes the last one. When I give -l --long it doesn't really matter

[maxnoe]

I somehow expected that traitlets would raise an error for --flag --no-flag

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1748 (b17b785) into master (9fb2901) will decrease coverage by 0.33%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1748      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.62%   91.28%   -0.34%     
==========================================
  Files         185      185              
  Lines       14382    14380       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        13177    13127      -50     
- Misses       1205     1253      +48     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
ctapipe/tools/tests/test_tools.py	97.14% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
ctapipe/tools/display_dl1.py	61.53% <100.00%> (-28.94%)	⬇️
ctapipe/tools/display_integrator.py	96.32% <100.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
ctapipe/tools/dl1_merge.py	82.10% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
ctapipe/tools/dump_triggers.py	86.66% <100.00%> (ø)
ctapipe/tools/muon_reconstruction.py	90.98% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
ctapipe/tools/stage1.py	93.75% <100.00%> (ø)
ctapipe/tools/camdemo.py	55.68% <0.00%> (-20.46%)	⬇️

---

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 9fb2901...b17b785. Read the comment docs.