Strongly Typed Content Item Converter does not support mapping name from an Option

[aweigold]

Motivation

When rendering a multiple choice elements in a strongly typed model, one must access the List<Option> value property of the MultipleChoiceElement class, which might be tedious. There should be a more straightforward path to the names of options.

One potential way to handle this would be like the following:

@ContentItemMapping("product")
public class Product {
  @ElementMapping("product_categories")
  List<Option> productCategories;

  //New feature
  @ElementMappingOption(elementCodeName = "product_categories", optionCodeName = "footwear")
  Boolean isFootwear;
}

Original description

If an Option is mapped to a field, the name from the option should be used.

[cunhazera]

@aweigold can you give some example of how to reproduce the bug?

[aweigold]

This came from me working with the SDK from our internal app and finding that Options (and Assets for that matter) don't provide a good way to simply map to a string in a strongly typed model. I could see it being useful for someone to just have a field set based on an option being set, without exposing the user to having to use the Option class. For example, if the option is a radio button, it would make sense to just set a String value of that Option's selection. On the Asset side, this would be mapping the URL or description String directly to a field.

Given that I don't believe the .Net SDK supports this kind of smart mapping, this may not be a priority, but I wanted to capture the issue as a nice to have.

[petrsvihlik]

You're right, such functionality is not present in the .NET SDK.

But let's say you wanted to render radio buttons - wouldn't you use Option.name for labels and Option.codename for ids?

<input type="radio" name="groupname" value="Option.codename" />Option.name<br>

[aweigold]

@petrsvihlik I think the usage of Option is fine, and probably could change this from a 'bug' to 'enhancement'. It all goes back to if we want to require a consumer to use our object model. I would beg the question "What's the difference between allowing a StronglyTyped ContentItem versus a StronglyTyped Option or Asset?"

In the end, I don't really care that much, we could close this as well. 😄

[petrsvihlik]

right :) let's change it to enhancement...that should be enough for now :)

[JanLenoch]

Hi @aweigold , I rephrased the original description so that newcomers understand it. Did I get your point correctly? Thanks!