add and remove methods added

[halilkaya]

With this PR, 2 methods which are add and remove added to Kaptan.

• add: Adds a key-value pair to the current data.

Current data: {'product': {'price': 1.25, 'currencies': ['TL', 'EUR']}}

with .add('product.isPaid', True) it changes to: {'product': {'price': 1.25, 'currencies': ['TL', 'EUR'], 'isPaid': true}}

with .add('product.currencies', 'USD') it changes to: {'product': {'price': 1.25, 'currencies': ['TL', 'EUR', 'USD']}}

with .add('product.price', 22) it raises error like Key price already exist

with .add('product.price', 22, True) it replaces price value. So, last parameter is to replace.

• remove: Removes a key from the current data.

with .remove('product.currencies') it changes to: {'product': {'price': 1.25}}

with .remove('product.currencies', 0) it changes to: {'product': {'price': 1.25, 'currencies': ['EUR']}}. If last parameter given, it refers index of an array.

[halilkaya]

Thanks @bahattincinic

[tony]

I've done JS so I'm familiar with using dot notation to access data. I've tried to take a lot of my JS patterns to python over the years and, to my surprise, ended up regretting it.

I could imagine being thrilled about adding a feature like this to kaptan 2 years ago or so.

Knowing what I know now, I don't really know if kaptan should be making an opinion on accessing nested data via dot notation, or adding and removing things in this way.

I think a better approach would be to make it more convenient / obvious to access the underlying dictionary data upon import. That makes it possible to use something like:

• https://pypi.python.org/pypi/dotmap
• https://pypi.python.org/pypi/dotted
• https://pypi.python.org/pypi/supermutes
• https://pypi.python.org/pypi/neobunch
• https://pypi.python.org/pypi/munch
• https://pypi.python.org/pypi/symboldict

The other option would be to add a class argument when importing to cast the incoming dict as a SymbolDict/Bunch/DotMap object. This would ensure equivalent behavior while not duplicating behavior other dictionary wrappers do.

That's my opinion, Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

[halilkaya]

You are right, actually. I though it first, but didn't want to change the structure.

We can use EasyDict to use data with dot notation in Kaptan.

If it's OK to use EasyDict, I can refactor the code.

[tony]

@halilkaya sure, any of them. You can create a common interface between all of them I think, since they all use dict.

Can you do it in a way that makes the dependency optional?

[halilkaya]

@tony sure. It had better be optional for backward compatibility. I'll do that. :)

[halilkaya]

@tony sorry for not dealing with this for a while. I've searched a little bit about using dot notation in Python dicts. But all the results suggest to use default call method. So, we shouldn't use dot notation on calling parameters like JS. What do you think @bahattincinic @emre ?

[tony]

In python the dot parameters are typically for method calls, module namespacing, etc.

i went through that phase of wanting to write python like JS or ruby, in fact my earliest issues on this project were to make behave more like nconf. #10

then like yourself, I read more python code and fell into the best practices seen in PEP's and larger projects

[tony]

@halilkaya A significant amount of time has passed since this contribution was made - firstly, thank you for it!

Do you still want to pursue this change? If not, it's find to close.

I have not been in contact with the maintainer of the project in a few years.