scripted included workflows able to use script from URL

[calum-github]

If I have Workflow_1 which I want to run a script to determine if the included workflow should be Workflow_2 or Workflow_3

I was looking at scripted included workflows as per:https://github.com/grahamgilbert/imagr/wiki/Workflow-Config#scripted-included-workflows

eg.

<dict>
    <key>type</key>
    <string>included_workflow</string>
    <key>script</key>
    <string>#!/usr/bin/python
model = "{{machine_model}}"
if model.startswith("VMware"):
    print 'ImagrIncludedWorkflow: vmware_tools'
else:
    print 'ImagrIncludedWorkflow: no_vmware_tools'</string>
    </dict>

However, this means I need to embed the script into the XML, which means I need to escape any special characters such as &, this also means my script is now in a different location to my other scripts and version control becomes a bit tricky.

I tried referencing a URL as per regular scripts like this:

<dict>
          <key>type</key>
          <string>included_workflow</string>
          <key>type</key>
          <string>script</string>
          <key>url</key>
          <string>http://192.168.178.135/some_script.sh</string>
</dict>

But this failed, the included workflow was just ignored, likely because of the two type keys in the dict?

Is there any way to use a script at a URL to echo out the correct workflow name to run as an included workflow?

[grahamgilbert]

Not presently. I do consider this a bug though. The question is how to best handle it? I'm thinking it's best to just check for the presence of a <key>script_url</key>. E.g:

<dict>
          <key>type</key>
          <string>included_workflow</string>
          <key>script_url</key>
          <string>http://192.168.178.135/some_script.sh</string>
</dict>

As just using url implies we're looking for the URL of the workflow itself (and would screw us over if we ever were to include components from plists via a URL in the future).

[clburlison]

At first I was going to recommend using the same format as you're already using for the scripts component however a second glance, that doesn't make complete sense to do so.

I think your proposed script_url key would be the best way to move forward. Leaving url free makes sense as @erikng already wanted that feature but he/I never finished it.

[grahamgilbert]

Bumping this one as help is still wanted.