Does not consider the case of properties whose parents are also properties

[steveukx]

Does not consider the case of properties whose parents are also properties

[shanimal]

I have the same problem with one of our legacy .properties i18n files. I just want to point out that fixing this issue (assign keys to a String) might cause issues for people who are using this to convert the object to JSON.

var s = new String("foo");
s.bar = "bar"
console.log(""+s) // VM199:4 foo
console.log(s.bar) // VM199:5 bar
JSON.stringify(s) // "foo" (note that bar is not represented in the final object)

The fix of course might be to resolve those issues in the properties files...
app.name=My App
app.version=2

[steveukx]

My current plan is to interpret the object for .path() at the time it is requested rather than as the properties object is built, deferring this TypeError out of construction.

Adding an option to ignore the property tree of primitives would probably resolve this case -

properties = {};
properties.a = new String('a');
properties.a.b = 'b';

JSON.stringify(properties); // {"a": "a"}
properties.a.b === 'b'; // true

[shanimal]

Also, two problems exist. The first is when we try to assign an object to a string (which throws an error) the other is when the object already exists an we try to assign a string to it.

app.version=2
app=My App

Honestly it would make sense to have some kind of option we could add that would tell the parser to not error and/or handle primitive assignments.

In my case since I'm ultimately creating a JSON file, I might be rather bewildered when some of my keys are missing. :)

[richardsimko]

What's the ETA on this? I'm working on a fix but I'm afraid it won't quite be up to the standard of making a PR.

[steveukx]

Apologies about the delay, I've had a lot of other things on - festive break seems like as good a time as any to work on this.

[richardsimko]

No worries, I'll keep tuned :)

[richardsimko]

What would be a reasonable default when trying to get this property? I.e. what should properties.get('app') give in the original example? The string "My app" or the object containing all values below?

I feel like the first one makes more sense but they both have their uses.

[steveukx]

I am of the opinion that overwriting the original string value with an object should mean that the original string is replaced so the returned value would be the object.

[richardsimko]

That does make sense. The way get is implemented currently it primarily looks in the _properties object which means that 'app' will resolve to "My app" in the example.

I have implemented what seems to be a functioning solution in terms of the parsing at least, I'll make a PR so you can have a look at it if you like. If you have any ideas about how to modify the getter then I'd love to hear them!