Well, it's not problem of Jinja itself: we can pass undefined=StrictUndefined and it will die on any use of an undefined variable. But it would probably mean fixing half of the templates :(

Also, do we really need to pass everything through a macro? Wouldn't it be easier to pack all fields in an object and pass the object instead? (But no, I am not volunteering to rewrite the whole template now :))

Well, it's not problem of Jinja itself: we can pass undefined=StrictUndefined and it will die on any use of an undefined variable. But it would probably mean fixing half of the templates :(

we already use undefined=StrictUndefined. the problem here is that the buggy code isn't ever being evaluated (the problematic or is short-circuiting and the bad case never came up in any tests). the solution to this is static type-checking, but there is no type checker that can parse jinja templates.

Also, do we really need to pass everything through a macro? Wouldn't it be easier to pack all fields in an object and pass the object instead? (But no, I am not volunteering to rewrite the whole template now :))

idk about that solution, but there's another way to avoid passing all those arguments, and that's to not use macros. cms actually used to do this, but it was changed to the macro (#1115) because it "is supposedly safer (as they don't rely on state of the context, which is error prone)."

I disagree with that justification, as that was literally the commit that introduced this bug.

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 54.71%. Comparing base (118c89f) to head (0c24db3).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1550      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.72%   54.71%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         336      336              
  Lines       27469    27469              
==========================================
- Hits        15032    15030       -2     
- Misses      12437    12439       +2     

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.

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.