Allow bulk overwriting application commands

[TeeSeal]

Summary

Implemented method for bulk overwriting application commands and added a couple more builders in the context of interactions to facilitate that. The ApplicationCommandBuilder is a bit awkward because I didn't want to make any breaking changes to the existing interface of Bot#register_application_command and Bot#edit_application_command.

---

Added

• Interactions::ApplicationCommandBuilder - needed something to encapsulate all data contained in an application command to facilitate the creation of the ApplicationCommandSetBuilder (see below).
• Interactions::ApplicationCommandSetBuilder - builder that exposes simple DSL to define multiple application commands within a single block
• Bot#bulk_overwrite_application_commands - public method that allows... well... bulk overwriting application commands. Works as shown in the YARD example.

bot.bulk_overwrite_application_commands(server_id: ENV["TEST_SERVER_ID"]) do |app|
  app.command(:ping, "Pong!")
  app.command(:echo, "Echo some text") do |cmd|
    cmd.string(:text, "Text to echo")
  end
end

Changed

• API::Application.create_global_command
• API::Application.edit_global_command
• API::Application.create_guild_command
• API::Application.edit_guild_command

All 4 of the above have been updated to take a hash of command parameters instead of separate arguments.

{
  name: :test,
  description: "some command",
  options: [],
  default_permission: true,
  type: 1
}

This could pose problems with .create_global_command and .create_guild_command as the name and description for those are no longer techincally required. Suggestions on handling this are welcome.

[swarley]

I think this looks good for the most part but I'm not a fan of removing the parameters in favor of a single hash for the API level methods. That's a blocker for getting this merged. If we can get that reverted and some eyes from another contributor on this we should be good to go

[swarley]

I know it's been a while since you've touched this (my apologies), I'm more than happy to make some changes myself to push this through if you've moved on from the feature 🙂

[TeeSeal]

@swarley yeah it has been a minute 😅 I no longer need this myself but I don't mind looking into it again and making the changes. See what I can do tomorrow 😃

[TeeSeal]

@swarley I've updated the PR to not touch existing code outside of a small fix and documentation.

[TeeSeal]

Been cleaning up my PRs. This is too old and probably no longer relevant. Closing.