Replace the input! macro with an Input builder #646

Pros:

less ambiguities
more type safety
less cloning (we don't clone forms for each input anymore)

Cons:

more verbose (but at the same time it is easier to parse IMO)
less natural syntax

Pros: - less ambiguities - more type safety - less cloning (we don't clone forms for each input anymore) Cons: - more verbose (but at the same time it is easier to parse IMO) - less natural syntax

Codecov Report

Merging #646 into master will decrease coverage by 0.26%.
The diff coverage is 0%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #646      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   35.06%   34.79%   -0.27%     
==========================================
  Files          68       68              
  Lines        7945     8006      +61     
  Branches     1890     1894       +4     
==========================================
  Hits         2786     2786              
- Misses       4383     4444      +61     
  Partials      776      776

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/Plume-org/Plume/pull/646?src=pr&el=h1) Report > Merging [#646](https://codecov.io/gh/Plume-org/Plume/pull/646?src=pr&el=desc) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/Plume-org/Plume/commit/a6c84daa1a242246ac01260eb9bc201dd6e47830?src=pr&el=desc) will **decrease** coverage by `0.26%`. > The diff coverage is `0%`. ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #646 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 35.06% 34.79% -0.27% ========================================== Files 68 68 Lines 7945 8006 +61 Branches 1890 1894 +4 ========================================== Hits 2786 2786 - Misses 4383 4444 +61 Partials 776 776 ```

this looks pretty cool!

Maybe implementing https://docs.rs/ructe/0.6.2/ructe/templates/trait.ToHtml.html would make more sens than a stand-alone function? Also, clippy is complaining about conventions, to_* usually take by reference

I thought about it, but my function takes a gettex::Catalog, while ToHtml::to_html doesn't. I could have passed it as an argument to Input::new tho.

But I made the commit before reading your review, so it is Input::html now (I can still change it if you prefer).

I thought about it, but my function takes a `gettex::Catalog`, while `ToHtml::to_html` doesn't. I could have passed it as an argument to `Input::new` tho. But I made the commit before reading your review, so it is `Input::html` now (I can still change it if you prefer).

definitely, what @fdb-hiroshima said

update / carification:
About implementing Ructe's ToHtml trait.

definitely, what @fdb-hiroshima said ****** update / carification: About implementing Ructe's `ToHtml` trait.

I did not notice the Catalog. It was just a suggestion, but as it's totally fine as is

As .html() take the Catalog, and the provided label in Input::new is always translated, can't it be translated transparently from .html() instead of explicitly each time? (I don't know if it would be better or worst, that's an actual question)

As `.html()` take the Catalog, and the provided label in Input::new is _always_ translated, can't it be translated transparently from `.html()` instead of explicitly each time? (I don't know if it would be better or worst, that's an actual question)

gettext-macros requires strings that are known at compile time, so that it can add them to the .pot file. With the latest version of the crate (which requires Rust 2018 for some reason, so we can't use it now), there is a new macro, called t that would allow us to do:

Input::new("email", t!("Your email address"))
    .input_type("email")
    .html(catalog);

Which would be a bit better (but we can't really do anything else than that I think, these strings should be marked as translatable with a macro at some point).

gettext-macros requires strings that are known at compile time, so that it can add them to the .pot file. With the latest version of the crate (which requires Rust 2018 for some reason, so we can't use it now), there is a new macro, called `t` that would allow us to do: ```rust Input::new("email", t!("Your email address")) .input_type("email") .html(catalog); ``` Which would be a bit better (but we can't really do anything else than that I think, these strings should be marked as translatable with a macro at some point).

👀

👍

 @ -13,0 +13,4 @@
       		.default(&form.title)
       		.error(&errors)
       		.set_prop("minlength", 1)
       		.html(ctx.1))

 @ -18,3 +18,3 @@
   <form method="post" action="@uri!(instance::update_settings)">
     @input!(ctx.1, name (text), "Name", form, errors.clone(), "props")
     @(Input::new("name", i18n!(ctx.1, "Name"))

 @ -13,0 +13,4 @@
       		.default(&form.title)
       		.error(&errors)
       		.set_prop("minlength", 1)
       		.html(ctx.1))

 @ -18,3 +18,3 @@
   <form method="post" action="@uri!(instance::update_settings)">
     @input!(ctx.1, name (text), "Name", form, errors.clone(), "props")
     @(Input::new("name", i18n!(ctx.1, "Name"))

Labels Mijlpalen

Replace the input! macro with an Input builder #646

Codecov Report

Reviewers

Stap 1:

Stap 2: