[patch] better unordered_list

better unordered_list

diff for regressiontest

new version, more common use case

new version, more common use case

new version, more common use case

hopefully my last version of the patch

hopefully my last version of the patch

hopefully my last version of the patch

Good job on the patch! I always found using unordered_list seemed more difficult than it needed to be.

Hi, thanks for the patch.

I've mailed you about a small bug in the patch with arrays of 2+ depth. Test case:

['page1', ['page2', ['page3', ['page4']]]]

At first i tried patching your patch, but i ended up rewriting it because it was too complex for me.

I decided not to post my code as a diff seeing as it's not quite finished. The original filter inserted newlines and tabs so that the html was formatted nicely. Personally i have no need for this feature, so i didn't implement it.

It shouldn't be much work though, so if someone is still reading this, feel free to implement it.

code:

def unordered_list(value):
    
  def _recurse_children(parent):
    temp = ''
    
    for child in parent:
      temp += '<li>'
      
      if type(child) == ListType:
        temp += '<ul>' + _recurse_children(child) + '</ul>'
      else:
        temp += child
        
      temp += '</li>'
      
    return temp
      
  return _recurse_children(value)

Regards, Simon

Hold on, child <ul>'s were not nested correctly. This is better:

def unordered_list(value):
    
  def _recurse_children(parent):
    temp = ''
    
    for child in parent:
      if type(child) == ListType:
        temp += '<ul>' + _recurse_children(child) + '</ul>'
      else:
        if temp != '':
          temp += '</li>'
        
        temp += '<li>' + child
      
    return temp
      
  return _recurse_children(value)

Replying to simonbun <simonbun@versea.be>:

Hold on, child <ul>'s were not nested correctly. This is better: {{{ def unordered_list(value): def _recurse_children(parent): temp = for child in parent: if type(child) == ListType?: temp += '<ul>' + _recurse_children(child) + '</ul>' else: if temp != : temp += '</li>' temp += '<li>' + child return temp return _recurse_children(value) }}}

The code looks really much cleaner, but would break the current implementation results.

Being able to use this on a simple list will be nice.

Also, the latest patch attached was before simonbun's comments about problems with lists nested more that 2 deep.

Please provide a single patch including a test with simonbun's failing test case. We also might want to officially document that this works for a simple (unnested) list now.

I made 1 whole patch, and added the failing testcase

completely rewritten with tests and docs

(In [6019]) Fixed #3184 -- Changed the unordered_list template filter to use a more simple format, while maintaining backwards compatibility with the old format. unordered_list now works with a simple list of items. Thanks for the patch, SmileyChris?.