feat: add keyed sections and fields #120
Conversation
|
@volodymyrZotov any thoughts about this feature? |
|
@yordis That's an interesting feature! Thank you for the idea and contribution! |
yordis
force-pushed
the
issue-117
branch
5 times, most recently
from
812f44e to
a484798
Compare
| for _, section := range item.Sections { | ||
| t.Errorf("Missing Implementation for %s", section.Label) | ||
| //keyedSection := dataSourceData.Get(fmt.Sprintf("keyed_sections.%s", section.Label)).(map[string]interface{}) | ||
| //dataSourceData.GetRawState() | ||
| //if keyedSection == nil { | ||
| // t.Errorf("Expected keyed section %v to exist", section.Label) | ||
| //} | ||
| //if keyedSection["id"] != section.ID { | ||
| // t.Errorf("Expected keyed section %v to have id %v got %v", section.Label, section.ID, keyedSection["id"]) | ||
| //} | ||
| // | ||
| //for _, field := range item.Fields { | ||
| // if field.Section != nil && field.Section.ID == section.ID { | ||
| // keyedField := dataSourceData.Get(fmt.Sprintf("keyed_sections.%s.keyed_fields.%s", section.Label, field.Label)).(map[string]interface{}) | ||
| // | ||
| // if keyedField == nil { | ||
| // t.Errorf("Expected keyed field %v to exist", field.Label) | ||
| // } | ||
| // if keyedField["id"] != field.ID { | ||
| // t.Errorf("Expected keyed field %v to have id %v got %v", field.Label, field.ID, keyedField["id"]) | ||
| // } | ||
| // } | ||
| //} | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@volodymyrZotov I seriously tried to get this unit test to work, but I do not understand enough what is going with these data types.
Could you take it from here at the very least? 🙏🏻
|
I do not think it will work 100% since it seems I can have the same fields with the same Also, the "default section" is called "see more" with no title?! Really weird {
"overview": {
"title": "TESTING",
"ainfo": ""
},
"details": {
"sections": [
{
"name": "qz7lnpx7knhq4wtmo4rpazggsi",
"title": "",
"fields": [
{
"t": "PASS1",
"n": "rgqehtvnmoyb2ibj72iqkgpi7u",
"k": "concealed",
"v": "123",
"inputTraits": {
"autocorrection": "no",
"autocapitalization": "none"
}
},
{
"t": "PASS",
"n": "n62laja2e4krsynq6yzz7j2qim",
"k": "concealed",
"v": "456",
"inputTraits": {
"autocorrection": "no",
"autocapitalization": "none"
}
},
{
"t": "",
"n": "pk76fwy77uwf3lzetbpbrg23je",
"k": "concealed",
"v": "empty label",
"inputTraits": {
"autocorrection": "no",
"autocapitalization": "none"
}
}
]
},
{
"name": "7bjiftbm6vwb3bngw6kfz32u6y",
"title": "SECTION 2",
"fields": [
{
"t": "section2",
"n": "s2rrhvsu7nu7xxn3yr6f4wnkyy",
"k": "concealed",
"v": "passsection2",
"inputTraits": {
"autocorrection": "no",
"autocapitalization": "none"
}
}
]
},
{
"name": "add more",
"title": "",
"fields": [
{
"t": "withoutsection?!",
"n": "dk3gaaz3n666mu32e3n7tb77i4",
"k": "concealed",
"v": "withoutsection?!",
"inputTraits": {
"autocorrection": "no",
"autocapitalization": "none"
}
},
{
"t": "text",
"n": "hjf2zjmalftd6blij7holjtesu",
"k": "string",
"v": "some text",
"a": {
"multiline": "yes"
},
"inputTraits": {
"autocorrection": "no",
"autocapitalization": "Sentences"
}
}
]
}
]
},
"createdAt": "2023-12-30T03:36:02Z",
"updatedAt": "2023-12-30T03:37:14Z",
"faveIndex": 0,
"trashed": "N",
"templateUuid": "110",
"uuid": "....."
} |
|
Any particular reason not to make each name-based section and field a list, since they're not enforced to be unique? Typical usage would just be basically If using the ID of the section / field instead of the name, then they wouldn't need to be a list because the IDs are always unique. I guess there would need be section_by_name[][] and section_by_id[] attributes, as well as field_by_name[][] and field_by_id[] (with the field lists maybe being under both the section and top-level). Shrug. |
closes #117