[#470] add map helper to the templating system

[ilyabayel]

Hey, folks! How is it going?
Could you please review this MR and check if it useful to have this feature?

Add map helper function to templating system for conditional mapping strings

Closes: #470

[klappradla]

Hey @ilyabayel 👋

welcome and thanks for your contribution 🙏

I think it's a viable use case and a feature that others could also benefit from. So yes, let's do this.

I have some thought on the implementation details though. May be personal preference, but I find the "array"-style format for something that's supposed to be a key-value-mapping a bit irritating and hard to read. How about we encode key and value as a string instead, like so:

{type | map("story:feat", "bug:fix", "task:chore")}

I would prefer to only have one syntax. This ☝️ is a bit the middle of what you proposed. What do you think?

[klappradla]

Did you try this out in the settings? It does not work for me and I think™ that's because the { and } are reserved characters in our DIY templating language.

[ilyabayel]

only in unit tests, but not in chorme itself. Probably it's broken there

[ilyabayel]

removed

[ilyabayel]

Hey @ilyabayel 👋

welcome and thanks for your contribution 🙏

I think it's a viable use case and a feature that others could also benefit from. So yes, let's do this.

I have some thought on the implementation details though. May be personal preference, but I find the "array"-style format for something that's supposed to be a key-value-mapping a bit irritating and hard to read. How about we encode key and value as a string instead, like so:

{type | map("story:feat", "bug:fix", "task:chore")}
I would prefer to only have one syntax. This ☝️ is a bit the middle of what you proposed. What do you think?

Hey @klappradla, thanks for welcoming me!

I initially chose the map("key", "value") syntax for two reasons:

1. It resembles familiar patterns like SQL's json_build_object('key', value, 'key2', value)
2. It's simple to implement, support, and use

I like your proposed syntax too, but there's an important edge case to consider:

{url | map("https\://google.com:https\://youtube.com")}

vs

{url | map("https://google.com", "https://youtube.com")}

The second variant is more readable when values contain colons.

So there is a trade-off:

• The "a:b" syntax works well for simple values
• The "a", "b" is more robust and requires no escaping

I'm open to either approach - what do you think?

[klappradla]

I like your proposed syntax too, but there's an important edge case to consider:

{url | map("https\://google.com:https\://youtube.com")}

vs

{url | map("https://google.com", "https://youtube.com")}

The second variant is more readable when values contain colons.

So there is a trade-off:

* The `"a:b"` syntax works well for simple values

* The `"a", "b"` is more robust and requires no escaping

I'm open to either approach - what do you think?

Oh, very good point! Well while I would have preferred the "key:value" syntax, the string array is truely more robust and easier to maintain, you're right. So let's go with that one 👍

[klappradla]

Thanks for the updates!

I'd suggest a small simplification on the function itself and align the doc string still. For whether mapping should be plural or not, that's probably personal preference. I'm undecided myself 🙈

[klappradla]

Thanks for the updates 🙏

Looking good ✨

I'm not sure when I'll come around to release this. But hopefully this week. I'll keep you posted @ilyabayel 💌