Add Shell Function Support

[Valentin-v-Todorov]

Currently only supports simple aliases. Add ability to manage shell functions alongside aliases.

• Store multi-line functions
• Export functions to shell config
• Display functions differently in TUI

[ShashwatAwate]

Hello! @Valentin-v-Todorov I would like to work on this!

[Valentin-v-Todorov]

Thanks for the contribution @ShashwatAwate ! Don't forget to link your PR to the issue ✌️

[ArjunDixit1]

@Valentin-v-Todorov Can I also be assigned to this issue having worked on similar projects in my past.

[ShashwatAwate]

Hi @Valentin-v-Todorov ,

I noticed there’s interest in this issue from multiple contributors. I’ve started experimenting with adding function support, but I don’t want to duplicate effort. Could you advise how we should proceed ?

Thanks!

[ShashwatAwate]

Hi @Valentin-v-Todorov 👋

While implementing the update, I noticed the current test suite is written around alias-only behavior (AliasStorage and related methods).
The new code now supports both aliases and functions, which causes some existing tests (like test_add, test_load, and test_export_to_dict) to fail since they don’t expect functions fields in the exported data.

What would you prefer I do?
It's my first time contributing so I'm not very sure

[skalwaghe-56]

@ShashwatAwate Could you please let me know what exactly are you facing?

[Valentin-v-Todorov]

Hey @ShashwatAwate and @ArjunDixit1! Thanks for your interest in this feature 🙌
@ShashwatAwate - Great question about the test failures. Since you've already started experimenting with the implementation, here's what I'd recommend:
For the failing tests (test_add, test_load, test_export_to_dict), you'll need to update them to handle both aliases and functions. The tests are currently written expecting only alias fields, but now your code exports function-specific fields too. You have two options:

Update the existing tests to be more flexible - make assertions that work for both aliases and functions (check for common fields, ignore type-specific ones)
Add separate test cases for functions alongside the existing alias tests - this gives better coverage

I'd suggest option 2 since it follows our small PR philosophy and gives clearer test coverage. Create separate test_add_function, test_load_function, etc. that specifically test function behavior.

@ArjunDixit1 - I appreciate your interest! Since @ShashwatAwate has already started and is actively working through the implementation challenges, let's let them continue with this one.

@ShashwatAwate - Go ahead and continue your work. When updating tests, remember to keep the PR focused and short if possible. If the changes get large, consider splitting into multiple PRs (one for core functionality, one for tests, etc.). Let me know if you need any clarification on the test structure!

[skalwaghe-56]

@ShashwatAwate Could you update?

[ShashwatAwate]

Hi @skalwaghe-56 , I'm sorry I couldn't work on this for the past few days, I'm currently updating storage so that functions get their own, previously I was using same storage as aliases which was leading to a few tests failing

[skalwaghe-56]

@ShashwatAwate Till when could you close the issue?

[ShashwatAwate]

@skalwaghe-56 , I'm planning to close this till end of next week. Is it fine? This is my first time doing open source so I'm not really sure

[skalwaghe-56]

@ShashwatAwate That's totally fine. I suggest you close this ASAP, we have some plans for the project.