Skip to content
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

Temp var #901

Merged
merged 22 commits into from
Nov 20, 2023
Merged

Temp var #901

merged 22 commits into from
Nov 20, 2023

Conversation

WarmUpTill
Copy link
Owner

No description provided.

@WarmUpTill WarmUpTill force-pushed the temp-var branch 6 times, most recently from 2e731db to 61d2300 Compare November 15, 2023 14:43
@Destroy666x
Copy link
Contributor

Destroy666x commented Nov 15, 2023

I tested the condition and seems to work perfectly, time to play around with that a bit.

The only bigger thing that I'd change, except small ones mentioned as code comments, would be the list and items it contains, which I also mentioned earlier on Discord.

E.g. in this case:
image

I definitely don't think this should show the User banned from channel macro vars and stop listing at the "segment" position at which the list is. Especially now that clearing variables looks to be solved and the further macro vars will always be empty in that context.

@WarmUpTill
Copy link
Owner Author

I tested the condition and seems to work perfectly, time to play around with that a bit.

The only bigger thing that I'd change, except small ones mentioned as code comments, would be the list and items it contains, which I also mentioned earlier on Discord.

E.g. in this case: image

I definitely don't think this should show the User banned from channel macro vars and stop listing at the "segment" position at which the list is. Especially now that clearing variables looks to be solved and the further macro vars will always be empty in that context.

I updated the PR to include that functionality.
Should work but couldn't really test it yet.

@Destroy666x
Copy link
Contributor

Destroy666x commented Nov 16, 2023

Nice. After quick test, it works well in the case mentioned above, but then action one is empty:
image

Same thing applies to else block. So it forgets to fill all condition ones for these.

@WarmUpTill
Copy link
Owner Author

Right - forgot about that.
I updated the PR once again.

@WarmUpTill WarmUpTill force-pushed the temp-var branch 7 times, most recently from 269ed0b to 6b9aba2 Compare November 19, 2023 14:32
Users could invalidate the actions vector while the actions were
executed resulting in a crash.
Enables registering additional functions, which are to be executed after
the loading steps are complete
Enables easier use of values returned by macro segments.
For example, this enables the user to extract the user name of a new
Twitch follower and change a text sources settings accordingly
They enable easy modification of single setting value of sources
compared to working with the raw json string
@WarmUpTill WarmUpTill merged commit 50dc404 into master Nov 20, 2023
10 checks passed
@WarmUpTill WarmUpTill deleted the temp-var branch November 20, 2023 19:08
@filiphanes
Copy link

JSON Pointer may be simpler and still powerful syntax
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6901

@Destroy666x
Copy link
Contributor

Do you mean simplier in terms of implementation? Or for users? If the 2nd then both are fairly easy IMO.

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.

[feature request] Variable JSON processing - e.g. value extraction
3 participants