Looking to control insert text with checkboxes

Questions & Suggestions
,
1

Hi there! I'm looking to insert a repeated bit of code that varies based on checkboxes. Basically, I have some commands running in Karabiner that sometimes include modifier keys. I want to be able to pull up a prompt window, insert the original key, the new key, and check on and off the modifiers. Here's the code I want to insert:

{
                                "conditions": [
                                    {
                                        "name": "spacefn_mode",
                                        "type": "variable_if",
                                        "value": 1
                                    }
                                ],
                                "from": {
                                    "key_code": "%Variable%originalKey%",
                                    "modifiers": {
                                        "optional": [
                                            "any"
                                        ]
                                    }
                                },
                                "to": [
                                    {
                                        "key_code": "%Variable%newKey%",
                                        "modifiers": [
                                            "control",
                                            "option",
                                            "shift",
                                            "command"
                                        ]
                                    }
                                ],
                                "type": "basic"
                            }

I want to be able to have the checkboxes in the prompt affect this section of the inserted text:

"modifiers": [
       "control",
       "option",
       "shift",
       "command"
]

I've built the prompt box:

Screenshot 2024-01-07 at 10.50.55 AM
Screenshot 2024-01-07 at 10.50.55 AM1166Ă—760 107 KB

Screenshot 2024-01-07 at 10.50.34 AM
Screenshot 2024-01-07 at 10.50.34 AM1366Ă—932 138 KB

But I'm racking my brain trying to figure out how to do this. Is it a ton of if/and statements with all the various possibilities? That seems rather inefficient. I found this forum post about doing something similar with regex but I'm pretty lost on how to approach that.

Anyone have ideas or guidance? Thanks!

2

Assuming Keyboard Maestro 11, perhaps, for example:

JSON List from checkboxes.kmmacros (4.6 KB)

Keyboard Maestro Export
Keyboard Maestro Export1012Ă—2186 211 KB

Expand disclosure triangle to view JS source 
return JSON.stringify(
    [
        "Command",
        "Option",
        "Shift",
        "Control"
    ]
    .flatMap(
        k => "1" === kmvar[k]
            ? [k]
            : []
    )
);
3

Or equivalently, if you prefer:

image
image986Ă—750 45.8 KB

Expand disclosure triangle to view JS source 
return JSON.stringify(
    [
        "Command",
        "Option",
        "Shift",
        "Control"
    ]
    .filter(k => "1" === kmvar[k])
);

But note that .flatMap is more useful if, in addition to a filter, you also need a transformation (e.g. normalisation to lower case). For example:

return JSON.stringify(
    [
        "Command",
        "Option",
        "Shift",
        "Control"
    ]
    .flatMap(
        k => "1" === kmvar[k]
            ? [k.toLocaleLowerCase()]
            : []
    )
);
4

You could do something clever (like @ComplexPoint shows), or just do something simple and boring like this:

Keyboard Maestro Actions.kmactions (7.6 KB)

Keyboard Maestro Export
Keyboard Maestro Export663Ă—2695 244 KB

Note the Search & Replace at the end to remove the trailing comma since you have to deal with that issue somehow.

1 Like
5

"clever" ouch ... :flushed:

Simplicity in eye of beholder ?

(I seem to be too old to easily follow what's going on your excellent Append variable approach ... Sigh ... tempus fugit)

(or perhaps just differing ways of thinking – defining the desired value vs engineering state changes ?)

1 Like
6

Definitely yes. As a non-programmer, your solution looks incredibly complicated—it would take me quite a while to implement, because I'd want to understand it before I put it to use. And looking at it, I have a vague understanding of what it does (inserts or not based on 1 or 0). But if I were to use it, I'd want to fully understand it so I can keep it current going forward, and that would take time.

Peter's solution, on the other hand, is clear to me, because I do know Keyboard Maestro quite well, and it's easy to see how it's building the desired string on the fly, with zero knowledge of programming required.

I have no idea which solution is "best," though yours seems much more efficient. But if I were implementing this today in one of my macros, I'd be doing it via Peter's method, because that's what I know and understand.

So definitely, yes, the preferred solution is clearly based on the observer's perspective.

-rob.

7

Perhaps you mean unfamiliar ?

( Its complexity is low – a composition of fewer parts than the append variable approach )

I wonder if "doing" is really the most helpful metaphor here ?

It's just a definition of the required output list as:

  • A copy of the input list in which,
  • only those lines matching a test are included, and
  • (in the case of the final .flatMap example), the included lines are given in a lower case form.
8

Things that are unfamiliar can appear complicated.

Complexity is more than just a line count. For someone unfamiliar, a relatively simple regex command can appear incredibly complex. A series of four "Search and Replace" actions that do the same thing would be easier for such a person, and hence, appear less complex.

I have no idea, because as noted, I don't really understand it at all.

Before I could put it to use, I'd want to write my own examples so I would have a full understanding of how it works. Then I have to balance the time required to do that versus just implementing a solution I already know.

Honestly, I think your solution looks amazing—clean and elegant and gets the job done. It's just not something I intrinsically understand given my background.

-rob.

9

Absolutely.

People use the tools they are familiar with. You're an expert at JS, and so for you, that's a great solution (and I love it, it's way better than my solution!). We have a few AS experts here, and they frequently provide AS solutions that are fantastic. Most of them I have to muddle over for quite some time to work out what they are doing or how I would modify it. It all depends on what you are used to.

Also, it is mostly the use of flatMap (which I have no idea about) that makes this clever - it would be easy enough to write the same structured JS as I did with the Keyboard Maestro actions.

Maybe I need top to add some mapping actions to Keyboard Maestro.

1 Like
10

I think that would be wonderful ...

( basing a new list on an existing one, in some consistent way, is such a commonly needed pattern )

(and of course, where I say list, I should really say, more generally, Keyboard Maestro Collection)

1 Like