[tiny, low prio] Syntax batch operations: lock-unlock

[mietcls]

Is there a reason to derive from the batch operations syntax for locking and unlocking?

Only locking and unlocking have a deriving structure, which makes it hard to remember what the structure is (or create templates).

Suggestions, following our existing syntax:
8701504,locking.set,locked
8701504,locking.set,unlocked

[nicolasfranck]

true|false could also be an option

[nics]

@mietcls the only syntax is operation name + zero or more arguments. The one's we have now with a dot operate on a property. But there are also object level operations like lock, unlock, delete, ... where it feels artificial to say deleted.set, true instead of simply delete.
The dots have no meaning, we can rename project.add to add_project if that feels more natural?

[mietcls]

Thank you for your feedback! That indeed feels more natural and makes it easy to remember / structure.
Not urgent, going to archive this discussion until there is a need to rework/extend or batch operations in a significant way in the future.