[RFC] Twig relationship/taxonomy functions & filters

[GwendolenLynch]

OK, so I had some time to waste waiting on PRs to get merged, and I got thinking about the debate at the last meeting regarding decoupling relationships & taxonomy objects from an entity in v4.

The point of contention was how we would approach that, so this is a PoC RFC … that I am either happy to see though to merge if we all like the approach, or just close the RFC and delete the branch if we think not … really, it wasn't a lot of work and I was bored! 🤣

Have a look, talk to me!

EDIT: It is worth noting that these are registered as filters & functions, the examples below are done using the Twig functions, 'cause personal taste.

{{ related }}

    {# Get all related, published, entities to "record" #}
    {% set related = related(record) %}

    {# Get only "pages" ContentType records related to this record #}
    {% set related_pages = related(record, 'pages') %}

    {# Get a maximum of 5 *each* of related "entries" & "pages" #}
    {% set related_selection = related(record, ['entries', 'pages'], 5) %}

Example use:

    {% set related = related(record) %}
    <ul>
    {% for entity in related.pages %}
        <li>{{ entity.title }}</li>
    {% endfor %}
    </ul>

    {% set related = related(record) %}
    {% for type, entities in related %}
        <p>{{ type }} related to this record:</p>
        <ul>
        {% for entity in entities %}
            <li>{{ entity.title }}</li>
        {% endfor %}
        </ul>
    {% endfor %}

{{ taxonomy }}

    {# Get all taxonomy entries for this "record" #}
    {% set taxonomy = taxonomy(record) %}

    {# Get only "categories" taxonomy entries for this "record" #}
    {% set taxonomy_by_type = taxonomy(record, 'categories') %}

    {# Get only "tags" & "categories" taxonomy entries for this "record" #}
    {% set taxonomy_by_types = taxonomy(record, ['tags', 'categories']) %}

Example use:

    {% set taxonomy = taxonomy(record) %}
    <ul>
    {% for entities in taxonomy.tags %}
        <li>{{ entity.name }}</li>
    {% endfor %}
    </ul>

    {% set taxonomy = taxonomy(record) %}
    {% for type, entities in taxonomy %}
        <p>{{ type }} taxonomy of this record:</p>
        <ul>
            {% for entity in entities %}
                <li>{{ entity.name }}</li>
            {% endfor %}
        </ul>
    {% endfor %}

[GwendolenLynch]

Updated the RFC examples with some comments, and a first "simpler" example for each … and a left out parameter that some 🐨 forgot to cherry-pick from the "messing around branch"

[GwendolenLynch]

OK, seeing as this is PoC & RFC, I've also added the other thing that doesn't belong, as an object, coupled to the entity … contenttype.

Internally, it just returns a recursive ImmutableBag, hence the ability to .getPath('fields/image/extensions'), so maybe it is a prime candidate for a Twig specific extend … or something to simplify getting by path for front-enders?

{{ contenttype }}

    {# Get the ContentType definition for this record #}
    {% set contenttype = contenttype(record) %}

Example use:

    {% set contenttype = contenttype(record) %}

    {# A nice title with the configured icon (colon thing wasn't my idea) #}
    <h4><i class="fa {{ contenttype.icon_many|replace(':', '-') }}"></i> 
    {{ contenttype.name }} ContentType</h4>

    {# Accessing the a field configuration parameter for the field named 'image'  #}
    {% set extensions = contenttype.getPath('fields/image/extensions') %}
    <p>The 'image' field accepts these file extensions: {{ extensions|join(', ') }}</p>

    {# What taxonomies are defined as available for the ContentType of *this* record #}
    <p>Available taxonomies: {{ contenttype.taxonomy|join(', ') }}</p>

    {# What ContentTypes are defined as available to be related to this *this* record #}
    {# Note that 'contenttype.relations' contains the parameters relevant, 
     # so using 'keys' just returns their names  #}
    <p>Relatable ContentTypes: {{ contenttype.relations.keys|join(', ') }}</p>

[bobdenotter]

We didn't get around to discussing this yet during the dev-meeting, so let's let it sit for a bit.

[GwendolenLynch]

We didn't get around to discussing this yet during the dev-meeting, so let's let it sit for a bit.

Yeah, zero stress … That's the idea of this one … it can hang around for a while as it is not a lot of work to maintain (unlike other branches), plus I am not convinced this is exactly what we want (I think it is close-ish though) …

Oh, and WRT to the debugging stuff, that is not the scope for this one specifically (probably at all), as that will require a bit more work and help from Team Texas when he's back online. Nonetheless what we agree on here affects how that will be handled to an extent.