secret accept: see the flag that comes after the arguments

The command refused every real invocation. Go's flag package stops
parsing at the first non-flag argument, so with the positionals first —
the order that reads correctly — `--from -` stayed among them and the
count check rejected it.

The host's own parser carries a note about this exact fault, and the
version it describes is worse: there a flag somebody passed was silently
ignored and the command succeeded anyway. This one at least refused.

The tests did not catch it because every case in them was a rejection.
The command was broken in the only way that matters — it refused what it
is for — and the suite was green. The lab found it at the first call.

Two tests now: the helper, and the command itself with a --from naming a
file that is not there, so the complaint must be about the file rather
than about usage. The second exists because injecting against the first
stayed silent: testing the helper alone left the command free to ignore
it entirely.

cmd/mesh-control/secret.go

@@ -31,13 +31,13 @@ func secretCommand(ctx context.Context, args []string) error {
 	if len(args) == 0 || args[0] != "accept" {
 		return errors.New("secret accept <node> <module> <name> [--from <file>]")
 	}
+	rest, flags := split(args[1:])
 	set := flag.NewFlagSet("secret accept", flag.ContinueOnError)
 	from := set.String("from", "",
 		"read the value from this file instead of asking (use - for standard input)")
-	if err := set.Parse(args[1:]); err != nil {
+	if err := set.Parse(flags); err != nil {
 		return err
 	}
-	rest := set.Args()
 	if len(rest) != 3 {
 		return errors.New("secret accept <node> <module> <name> [--from <file>]")
 	}
@@ -69,6 +69,23 @@ func secretCommand(ctx context.Context, args []string) error {
 	return nil
 }
 
+// split separates what this command is about from how it was asked.
+//
+// **Because the standard library stops parsing at the first non-flag argument.** With the
+// positionals first — which is the order that reads correctly — everything after them is left
+// sitting in the arguments, so `secret accept a b c --from -` arrives as five positionals and the
+// flag is never seen. The host's own parser carries the same note, and the fault it names is
+// worse than this one: there, a flag somebody passed was silently ignored and the command
+// succeeded anyway.
+func split(args []string) (positional, flags []string) {
+	for i, arg := range args {
+		if strings.HasPrefix(arg, "-") {
+			return args[:i], args[i:]
+		}
+	}
+	return args, nil
+}
+
 // asSupplied is the value with its line ending removed and nothing else.
 //
 // **A file has a trailing newline and a password does not**, so the ending goes — a credential

cmd/mesh-control/secret_test.go

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ package main
 import (
 	"os"
 	"path/filepath"
+	"strings"
 	"testing"
 )
 
@@ -67,3 +68,44 @@ func TestTheArgumentsAreRequired(t *testing.T) {
 		}
 	}
 }
+
+// The invocation that actually gets used, which the first version of these tests never tried.
+//
+// Every case here was a rejection, so the command was broken in the one way that matters — it
+// refused what it is for — and the tests were green. The lab found it at the first call.
+func TestTheArgumentsAndTheFlagAreBothSeen(t *testing.T) {
+	rest, flags := split([]string{"anchor", "umami", "database", "--from", "-"})
+	assert(t, len(rest) == 3, "the three positionals were not kept: %v", rest)
+	assert(t, len(flags) == 2, "the flag was not separated: %v", flags)
+
+	// And with no flag at all, which is the interactive form.
+	rest, flags = split([]string{"anchor", "umami", "database"})
+	assert(t, len(rest) == 3 && len(flags) == 0, "%v / %v", rest, flags)
+
+	// A flag before the positionals still works, because somebody will write it that way.
+	rest, flags = split([]string{"--from", "/tmp/x"})
+	assert(t, len(rest) == 0 && len(flags) == 2, "%v / %v", rest, flags)
+}
+
+// And the wiring, not just the helper.
+//
+// Testing `split` alone left the command able to ignore it entirely — removing the call changed
+// no test. This reaches secretCommand: with a `--from` naming a file that is not there, the
+// complaint must be about the file. A complaint about usage would mean the flag was never seen.
+func TestTheCommandItselfSeesTheFlag(t *testing.T) {
+	err := secretCommand(t.Context(),
+		[]string{"accept", "anchor", "umami", "database", "--from", "/nonexistent/nowhere"})
+	if err == nil {
+		t.Fatal("a missing file was accepted")
+	}
+	if strings.Contains(err.Error(), "secret accept <node>") {
+		t.Fatalf("the command did not see its flag and complained about usage instead: %v", err)
+	}
+}
+
+func assert(t *testing.T, ok bool, format string, args ...any) {
+	t.Helper()
+	if !ok {
+		t.Fatalf(format, args...)
+	}
+}