Passing data to includes

[sjelfull]

Twig supports sending data to includes, like so:

{% include 'include.twig' with {
    name: 'whatever'
} %}

This is really useful in many cases, like re-using a block in different contexts, with different behaviour / data. Have anyone looked into adding support for this?

[ricordisamoa]

#522

[carljm]

Reopening to track this feature request. Some discussion in #522.

I'm not opposed to this feature, but since it's not in Jinja2 I'm also uninterested in implementing it or reviewing or merging the implementation. Anyone interested in the feature is welcome to submit a pull request, it may be that one of the other maintainers is interested in reviewing and merging it.

[sbussard]

it would be great to be able to pass blocks into includes to make it easier to create one-off versions

[carljm]

I don't know what "pass blocks into includes" means, concretely speaking.

[sbussard]

Here's the use case I'm concerned about:

I have an include for a site banner.
The banner has links in it, but the links need to change based on the page.
The banner include is used in multiple templates.

On a page I would like to define a block with the links to be used, then be able to pass that block to the banner include to replace the default markup for that section.

[carljm]

The "nunjucks way" to approach that use case is to make the banner-display a macro, which takes arguments (perhaps with default values) for the various links that may need to change.

I still don't understand how your proposed solution would work. If there are multiple links that need to be changed, wouldn't you need multiple blocks? Why are blocks better here than simple variables or macro arguments?

[sbussard]

In that particular case all the links are side by side. The nunjucks way is good.

[keelii]

+1

[sbussard]

Following up on this: I was able to do much of what I needed to do when I realized that variables are globally scoped (but you don't have to worry about leaking to sibling pages). For more complicated situations, it's good to know that includes have their own inheritance tree. If that's not enough, macros come to the rescue. In my opinion it's not a matter of being able to do something with nunjucks, it's a matter of how intuitive it will be to do.

@keelii I'd be interested in hearing your use case to test this hypothesis.

[carljm]

To be clear, the original feature request here is to pass simple extra context data to include, using syntax like {% include "somefile.html" with {'foo': 'bar'} %} This ticket is open because I don't have a problem with that feature in theory if someone wants to implement it, though as I've said it's not a high priority for me personally.

The ticket has since been clouded with discussion of some not-entirely-clear-to-me additional hypothetical feature involving "passing blocks into includes." If that's still something you want to pursue or discuss, please open a new separate issue for it, as IMO it's quite a different thing from the feature proposed in this issue, and I don't think anything will be gained by confusing them in a single issue.

Thanks!

[sbussard]

@carljm right, that is not what I'm trying to do. That's why I posted my follow up. I should have been more clear.