Suggested patch for a shorthand definition of quoted fields in http_urllib

[otdftr]

When working with a greater number of transformed fields (e. g. through topic's alldata), the params definition for the target has a lot of redundancy, especially when the field names are crafted to be the parameter names of the query parameters:

This patch provides a shorthand for a definition like
[ #method, #url, { 'param1' : '@param1', ..., 'paramN': '@paramN' }, ...
by allowing lists for the 3rd parameter of the target definition:
[ #method, #url, [ '?param1', ..., '?paramN' ], ...

If a list is provided

• the given names will be used as both keys do item.data{} and query parameter names
• they will be added as quoted fields, regardless of whether the @-prefix is provided: [ 'param1', ..., 'paramN' ] will be interpreted as [ '@param1', ..., '@paramN' ]
• with the prefix ?, fields can be declared optional: they will not be included in the query if the data is invalid or missing from item.data{}; [ 'param1', '?param2', ... ]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 13 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 49.60%. Comparing base (9d61fc5) to head (675fbb0).

Files	Patch %	Lines
mqttwarn/services/http_urllib.py	0.00%	13 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #693      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   49.75%   49.60%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          81       81              
  Lines        4034     4046      +12     
==========================================
  Hits         2007     2007              
- Misses       2027     2039      +12     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	49.60% <0.00%> (-0.15%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[amotl]

Dear Olaf,

thanks for your contribution, I like it. While I don't have any objections about merging this improvement, I would like to have @jpmens and @sumnerboy12 the final voice on it.

With kind regards,
Andreas.

[jpmens]

I like it.

[amotl]

I think this can be merged. However, would it be possible to come up with corresponding test cases so the new code and functionality will be covered properly?