Dealing with XML that is sometimes an array, and sometimes not

[goose-ws]

I'm using yq to parse some data from API lookups in Plex. The specific string I'm using it:

yq -p xml '.MediaContainer.Directory | select ( ."+@index" == "2024" ) | ."+@ratingKey"'

The trouble is, sometimes my .Directory is an array, and sometimes it is not, depending on how many seasons of an item are available. Is there some one-line way I can add .[] to the end of .Directory if it's an array, and omit it if it's not?

Thanks in advance :)

[mikefarah]

Yep, take a look at the examples here: https://mikefarah.gitbook.io/yq/usage/xml#parse-xml-force-as-an-array. Let me know if you still need help :)

[goose-ws]

Thanks for the super quick reply! I've been playing around with the example for force as an array that you linked, but I've been unsuccessful so far in trying to manipulate it to do what I want.

For a non-array item, I'm able to extract the `.MediaContainer.Directory.+@ratingKey" value that I want via:

yq -p xml ".MediaContainer.Directory |= ([] + .) | select ( .MediaContainer.Directory[0].\"+@index\" == \"2024\" ) | .MediaContainer.Directory[0].\"+@ratingKey\""

But for an array item, I haven't yet figured out how to string it together with the |= ([] + .) modifier to make it pull the +@ratingKey for the specific +@index year that I want.

I'm probably also not using yq as efficiently as it can be for this purpose, either. I'd appreciate any suggestions you have on how to better format my commands.

Edit:

Further banging my head against the wall has found that:

yq -p xml ".MediaContainer.Directory | ([] + .) | .[] | select ( .\"+@index\" == \"2024\" ) .\"+@ratingKey\""

Does what I want it to do for both array and non-array items. Although I'd still appreciate any feedback on more efficient use of yq.

[mikefarah]

Without having a sample file, it's a little hard to tell. This looks pretty good efficiency wise - I'm a little suspicious of this bit: ([] + .) | .[] as it seems like you're putting into an array, only to explode it again. You might be able to get away with just .[]. That said, this doesn't make a big difference though efficiency wise.