Charles d'Avernas
Charles d'Avernas
Well, yet another excellent question 😆 My opinion on this is that the result should be overwritten. The reason is that, as you said, `jq` provides ways to replace, update...
To is ambiguous indeed. However it is not solved imho by using merge or set, as it's the content of the jq expression which (should) decide what to do (just...
> jq can only operate in the context of one object. @matthias-pichler-warrify Yes, that is correct. The operand being the "input". ... but you have parameters, which brings me to...
> (I propose to use set). And on top of that I propose to add merge @fjtirado That's an intersting idea indeed. I feel however it adds additional properties for...
> I would say that proper syntax should be Renaming is not the point here: it's off topic. If that's something you think it's necessary, let's open an issue or...
> will do it And in documentation. output is the expression that returns the object that should be assigned to the context. I understand what you wrote. What I said...
@matthias-pichler-warrify Hasn't this been addressed and closed by #873 ?
@matthias-pichler-warrify can we close this issue?
> @cdavernas Maybe moving this one to extensions instead of removing it? Unhappilly, I don't think that it would address the feature set nor the issues at hand, which can...
@matthias-pichler Is that still on the table or should we close it, possibly opening a new one if/when needed?