feat: Add signoff option

[mbwhite]

Our current process required that the git commit --signoff is used to add a signed-off-by trailer to the commit message.

Adding an additional CLI option to permit this to be added.

• Updated CLI
• Updated tests
• Updated readme.md

[TimothyJones]

This is great, thanks so much for the PR! AND documentation and tests! 🙌🎉

I left a couple questions inline - Also, do you think the argument would be better named —signoff, to match the git argument that people might be looking for?

[TimothyJones]

It’s late here so maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t see how this test confirms what it says in the it statement- is it supposed to?

[mbwhite]

I copied the previous test that was testing for the --sign option and how it affected the git commit command;

Just to confirm - admit I've not dug into deep details of how the tests are structured - I've done the 'inverse' test and deliberately broke the code and the test flags this up...

  ● cli › with mocked git › --signedoff adds signed-off-by to the commit message

    expect(received).toEqual(expected) // deep equality

    - Expected  - 1
    + Received  + 1

    @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
      Array [
        "commit",
    -   "--signoff",
    +   "--wibble",
        "CHANGELOG.md",
        "package.json",
        "package-lock.json",
        "-m",
        "chore(release): 1.0.1",

Gives me some confidence that test would act as a regression check.

[TimothyJones]

Aha, yep, makes sense. I’m not the original author, so I’m not across exactly how all the tests work

[TimothyJones]

npm run format:fix will fix the build error

[mbwhite]

This is great, thanks so much for the PR! AND documentation and tests! 🙌🎉

I left a couple questions inline - Also, do you think the argument would be better named —signoff, to match the git argument that people might be looking for?

thanks :-)

I'd debated with myself on that exact question. Using --signoff to match git as you say is valid... but I settled on --signedoff as I was worried that it was very close to the tools --sign option.

Would commit-and-tag-version --sign --signoff be confusing?

Happy to go within either spelling :-)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (cd0f921) 94.42% compared to head (42b05bc) 94.43%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #120      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.42%   94.43%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          25       25              
  Lines         466      467       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits          440      441       +1     
  Misses         26       26              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[TimothyJones]

I see what you are saying about the ambiguity, but I reckon that’s a risk either way.

Even if the alternative is more ambiguous, I reckon that the consistency with git is worth it.

[mbwhite]

Thanks @TimothyJones

[TimothyJones]

Thank you for the contribution! Releasing 12.1.0 now, should be live shortly.