I'd support that. It should be pretty easy to do. You just have to check for input and use it and make sure you don't have input and --data-record parameters at the same time.

I'm all for making these stor commands as ergonomic as possible.

Hi, me and my colleague would like to know if it is still possible to work on this enhancement!

@JoaoFidalgo1403 Sure. I was just thinking that it could work both ways. If the -d parameter is they, work the way I wrote it. If the -d parameter is missing and there is input being passed in as a record, then use that, but like I said, if you have both input and -d, that's an error case.

@fdncred Also, would it be ok if we did the same work on stor update ?

@fdncred Also, would it be ok if we did the same work on stor update ?

i think so

        let columns: Option<Record> = call.get_flag(engine_state, stack, "data-record")?;
        match _input {
            PipelineData::Empty => {
                 // do nothing
            },
            PipelineData::Value(v, _) => {
                if columns.is_some() {
                    //error
                }
                else {
                    columns = Some(v.into_record()?);
                }
            },
            _ => {
                   // error
            }
        }

Would something like this be on the right track? I'm new to the code base and a little unfamiliar with the code style.
@fdncred

@bobby-palmer I think that's probably part of it, although input shouldn't have an underscore if it's being used. If there's no input, you should look for the data as a parameter. You might dig through the command to see which ones can work with input and parameters. I don't have any in mind right now.