Allow lists of possible values in config file #390
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
domna
approved these changes
Jul 24, 2024
lukaspie
force-pushed
the
lists-in-config-file
branch
from
a1f3698 to
724d450
Compare
8 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This allows to write
"['@attrs:<text>', '@eln', 'no title']"in the config file, which gets parse into the prefixes as a list of tuples[('@attrs', 'text'), ('@eln', ''), ('', 'no title')]. For each of these, it is checked if a value can be returned (whatever that means for the reader solution) and if so, the value is written. If not, "no title" is written. I think this is much cleaner implementation of having these multiple options than before.I also changed the
parent_keyinFlattenSettingsto "/ENTRY" to match our previous discussion. Finally, I removed the link handling in theflatten_jsonas this shall be handled by the link callback. Are there any issues with this?@domna there were some problems with the handling of
!for the required fields in optional groups while I was implementing this solution. I think it works now, but I didn't have a good example for this, can you check with your example if it still works?