Skip to content

Introduce support for jinja2-based templates. #210

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: next
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

albu-diku
Copy link

No description provided.

@albu-diku albu-diku force-pushed the addition/object_type_template branch 3 times, most recently from 6c221a4 to eb8f895 Compare March 1, 2025 12:16
@albu-diku albu-diku force-pushed the addition/object_type_template branch from e42acc7 to 21a5ef0 Compare March 11, 2025 13:11
@albu-diku albu-diku force-pushed the addition/object_type_template branch from f718ae4 to 6abeec6 Compare March 23, 2025 13:05
Copy link
Contributor

@jonasbardino jonasbardino left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From a first glance it looks sensible and usable enough.
I still would like a short write-up or analysis of what we want / need and some sort of brief evaluation of available template engines including features and performance. Bonus for thoughts and numbers backing the choice of granularity to be the individual output object entries.
We may still very well go with jinja2 but just to make sure it's in fact the best match.

This being a draft I'll refrain from commenting much on the obvious polish missing before it's ripe for actual merging, but from a quick glance you probably want to fix a few typos in var and function names, go over license headers and consider doc strings :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants