Liquid tags in SASS no longer work with version 2.1.0

[travisneilson]

Hi! I was using liquid tags in my SASS compiled by Jekyll and it worked famously. But in 2.1 they no longer work.

I'm not sure if this feature broke, or if the way you go about it changed.

Here is the file I'm referring too: https://github.com/DevTips/Artists-Theme/blob/master/assets/css/all.sass
Lines 13-15

(I reverted to Jekyll 2.0.3 and it works fine again...)

[parkr]

Yes, we decided offering liquid in assets was a Bad Idea (tm). I'm on my phone right now and can't find the issue but we had a discussion. Basically, syntax tends to totally get fucked (i.e. clash)

[budparr]

What happened to #2023 where it was left with you saying, @parkr:

With @imathis's support and fantastic explanation, let's try Sass with Liquid (just for Pages, not for imports, mind you) and see how it goes.

[travisneilson]

Oh. That's interesting. Thanks for letting me know. Kind of a bummer though, that was really exciting to me.

Is there another way to conversate between the two?

I'm trying to have a settings.yml where you can set everything including colors and images etc...

[AJ-Acevedo]

This would be really helpful for Jekyll themes! 👍

[envygeeks]

It wouldn't be too hard to build a set of Sass/SCSS/Less helpers that bring the Jekyll config in. The question is, does it get embedded into Jekyll, does it become a gem of it's own (say jekyll-style-helpers?) It would bug me a lot to do Sass/SCSS only and leave out Less but I would be more than happy to build this up tonight if people really want it.

[travisneilson]

I would appreciate it. But don't do out of your way for only me. Though I can't be the only one that would consider it helpful.

(And I would mention it/you on my YouTube channel :)

[travisneilson]

Though it's worth mentioning that the desired functionality was potentially accomplished via GRUNT. Though I haven't tested it yet.

Here is the grunt pull request by one of my contributors on our community project: DevTips/Artists-Theme#22

[boodaah3d]

I'd like to see the solution @envygeeks brought up. I'm sure the GRUNT solution will work very well, but why install and install node.js and grunt to do what could be done using the jekyll tools we already have. I want to see both options.

[budparr]

@envygeeks - my use case was to create a YAML file in the _data folder to give non-technical people access to a set of variables that would interact with the stylesheets (for instance, a color scheme as the easiest example).

However, I've also set up a conveniently located Sass file for users with instructions (e.g. $ prefix), which serves a similar purpose and isn't much more foreign than a YAML file. Or, a YAML file can be used, just not interacting with the stylesheets.

So from my perspective it's a nice to have thing, but not a need to have if adding it falls outside of Jekyll's stated goal of simplicity.

[imathis]

I was planning to make use of this in a new theme. I'm glad I never got around to it. I'll think about what it would take to let Sass read from a yaml config, or if that's even a good idea.

[travisneilson]

@budparr 's use case is spot on. But I'd argue that having a single place for customization options is the best route, not a .yml for content and a separate .scss for style/colors. If Jekyll wants simplicity, isn't this preferred?

When it comes to theming, (or anything really) you should design for - end user > site owner > site developer

It looks like we are putting the theme developer before the person who would use the theme. 😬

[envygeeks]

I don't know that the "put this person before another person" argument could even stand up at all under scrutiny because all things considered, this is not Wordpress, you do not have a fancy admin panel where all this can be changed... yes porting the principles of easy configuration for your themes is nice, but you could just as easily put that at the top of your sass file and as a variable and they could just as easily change it there.

I am still for the configuration being available via sass/less/scss (and if @imathis doesn't do it or doesn't want to do it, I will) but the supporting comment, doesn't even fly in my book, because logically it makes no sense to me based on the way Jekyll works and the way they will have to use it in the first place.

[travisneilson]

@envygeeks I see your point, and I accept it.

[D-side]

I was using variables in my styles too and spent quite some time figuring out what got broken after the update. Turns out, this was actually an intended change, huh.
Too bad. I'd love to see an example of this causing undesired behaviour, but curly braces are widely used pieces of syntax, they'd be hit one day anyway. Sass should be good enough all by itself.

So, after all, I'll have to make something like settings.sass, to keep things customizable.

• To support that point - styles should be adjusted in style files (*.sass, *.scss), that makes sense, things stay intuitive.
• Downside - styles cannot reflect anything based on data in site object, that would require writing styles inside HTML tags. Never needed this so far, it's just a point to consider.