Long options that start with `--no-*` are negated even when its explicitly defined as an option

[majormoses]

Version:

mixlib-cli-1.7.0

Environment:

Unsure see: sensu-plugins/sensu-plugins-disk-checks#94

Scenario:

Use an arg such as --no-smart-capable-disks with a -

Steps to Reproduce:

1. clone repo: https://github.com/sensu-plugins/sensu-plugins-disk-checks
2. run bundle
3. run script:

$ bundle exec ./bin/check-smart.rb --no-smart-capable-disks
Check failed to run: undefined method `to_sym' for false:FalseClass
Did you mean?  to_s, ["/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/gems/2.4.0/gems/mixlib-cli-1.7.0/lib/mixlib/cli.rb:290:in `block (3 levels) in opt_parser'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/2.4.0/optparse.rb:1552:in `block in parse_in_order'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/2.4.0/optparse.rb:1538:in `catch'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/2.4.0/optparse.rb:1538:in `parse_in_order'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/2.4.0/optparse.rb:1532:in `order!'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/2.4.0/optparse.rb:1626:in `permute!'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/2.4.0/optparse.rb:1648:in `parse!'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/gems/2.4.0/gems/mixlib-cli-1.7.0/lib/mixlib/cli.rb:230:in `parse_options'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/gems/2.4.0/gems/sensu-plugin-1.4.5/lib/sensu-plugin/cli.rb:13:in `initialize'", "./bin/check-smart.rb:138:in `initialize'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/gems/2.4.0/gems/sensu-plugin-1.4.5/lib/sensu-plugin/cli.rb:57:in `new'", "/home/babrams/.rbenv/versions/2.4.1/lib/ruby/gems/2.4.0/gems/sensu-plugin-1.4.5/lib/sensu-plugin/cli.rb:57:in `block in <class:CLI>'"]

Expected Result:

Argument should work

Actual Result:

It blows up and does not parse the arguments properly

[majormoses]

After doing a bit more digging here it would appear that the issue happens when the long option starts with --no-* it automatically attempts to negate an option assuming its boolean. I am not sure how to solve this but maybe we can put some validation in during the option building. Minimally I think this behavior needs to be documented.