ytt VS strictyaml

YTT - YTT is a templating tool that understands YAML structure. It helps you easily configure complex software via reusable templates and user provided values using the Starlark language.

Adding https://carvel.dev/ytt/ to the list. I was happy using this tool as IMO it mixes good things from Helm and Kustomize, however the syntax is ugly and repelling my colleagues to have a closer look.

> Templating yaml is a terrible, terrible idea

I've had a good time using ytt: https://carvel.dev/ytt/. It implements language-aware templating, which is IMO the only reasonable way to do it.

`ytt` is part of the Carvel toolchain. https://carvel.dev/ytt/

I agree with you on `you will want to see just plain texts instead of a bunch of templating token with hidden logic.` Which is why I think https://carvel.dev/ytt/ would be great. We could generate these templates in pipelines, or we could just make it easier to maintain what we have.

For more advanced configuration management you might be interested in ytt ( https://carvel.dev/ytt/ ) which is a "yaml-aware" templating tool. it lets you do "patches" via an overlay mechanism to add or remove specific yaml blocks, and it also lets you use a simplified python dialect for more complicated logic. With ytt you would put your DNS IP into a "data values" file and then run ytt to render it into the configs before handing them off to the deployment tool. e.g. `ytt -f | kubectl apply`

I said this above as well: ytt (https://carvel.dev/ytt/) lets you embed starlark into valid yaml, among other cute tricks for managing biz-logic in configs.

Manifests are generated with ytt (https://carvel.dev/ytt/).

This is why you should consider https://carvel.dev/ytt/

NestedText already is the way I use YAML; everything is intepreted as a string. I have some trust in my YAML parser to not mangle most strings. I could use NestedText, but users would be unfamiliar with it, and IIRC the only parsers are in Python. But then I could use StrictYaml too https://github.com/crdoconnor/strictyaml

you can stick to a subset of YAML syntax (e.g. strictYAML)

YAML stands for "YAML Ain’t Markup Language" - this is known as a recursive acronym. YAML is often used for writing configuration files. It’s human readable, easy to understand and can be used with other programming languages. Although YAML is commonly used in many disciplines, it has received criticism on the amoutn of whitespace .yml files have, difficulty in editing, and complexity of the standard. Despite the criticism, properly using YAML ensures that you can reproduce the results of a project and makes sure that the virtual environment packages play nicely with system packages. (If you're looking for another way to share environments there are other alternatives to YAML which include StrictYAML (a type-safe YAML parser) and NestedText)

The example you linked provides this as an example of a YAML document that he wants his format to support.

That safe subset exists and is implemented in a number of languages. It is called strict-yaml: https://hitchdev.com/strictyaml/

StrictYAML\ (33 comments)

To me those are in the category of "nice to have", and the problem is that every developer has different preferences for these [1] [2]. But the main features of StrictYaml, like supporting comments and less syntactic noise, I think are pretty uncontroversial, and perhaps it's worth it to get people to switch over for those alone. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be a significant enough improvement over JSON, and I'd say those two features are more than enough

[1]: https://github.com/crdoconnor/strictyaml/issues/37

[2]: https://github.com/crdoconnor/strictyaml/issues/38