Resolve Contains_key Closes #305

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
 
 ### Checklist
 - [ ] Pull request details were added to CHANGELOG.md
+- [ ] Valid examples WDL's were added or updated to the SPEC.md (see the [guide](https://github.com/openwdl/wdl-tests/blob/main/docs/MarkdownTests.md) on writing markdown tests)

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ version development
   consist of multiple files.
   [PR 241](https://github.com/openwdl/wdl/pull/241) by @cjllanwarne.
 
++ Added `contains_key` function to standard library.
+
+
 version 1.1.1
 ---------------------------
 

RFC.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ RFC Process
 
 Most technical decisions are decided through the "RFC" ([Request for Comments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments)) process. Small changes, such as minor grammatical edits to the specification, do not need to need to follow the RFC process. However, if one intends to make a substantive change to the WDL specification , the following process should be adhered to:
 
- 1. Ideally have an informal discussion of the topic on the [mailing list](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/openwdl) and/or the [gitter channel](https://gitter.im/openwdl/wdl) in order to gauge basic viability. As a rule of thumb, receiving encouraging feedback from long-standing community members is a good indication that the RFC is worth pursuing.
+ 1. Ideally have an informal discussion of the topic on [Slack](https://join.slack.com/t/openwdl/shared_invite/zt-ctmj4mhf-cFBNxIiZYs6SY9HgM9UAVw) and/or [GitHub discussions](https://github.com/openwdl/wdl/discussions) in order to gauge basic viability. As a rule of thumb, receiving encouraging feedback from long-standing community members is a good indication that the RFC is worth pursuing.
  2. Write up a formal proposal, including requested changes to the current specification, as a pull request on GitHub
  3. A core team member will be assigned as the *shepherd* of this RFC. The shepherd shall be responsible for keeping the discussion moving and ensuring all concerns are responded to.
  4. Work to build broad support from the community. Encouraging people to comment, show support, show dissent, etc. Ultimately the level of community support for a change will decide its fate. 

SPEC.md

@@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ Revisions to this specification are made periodically in order to correct errors
     - [`as_pairs`](#as_pairs)
     - [`as_map`](#as_map)
     - [`keys`](#keys)
+    - [✨ `contains_key`](#-contains_key)
     - [`collect_by_key`](#collect_by_key)
   - [Other Functions](#other-functions)
     - [`defined`](#defined)
@@ -9209,6 +9210,165 @@ Example output:
 </p>
 </details>
 
+### ✨ `contains_key`
+
+```
+Map[P, Y], P), Boolean contains_key(Map[P?, Y], P?)
+```
+
+Given a key-value type collection (`Map`, `Struct`, or `Object`) and a key, tests whether the collection contains an entry with the given key.
+
+**Parameters**
+
+1. `Map[P, Y]`|`Struct`|`Object`: Collection to search for the key.
+2. `P|Array[String]`: The key to search. If the first argument is a `Map`, then the key must be of the same type as the `Map`'s key type. If the `Map`'s key type is optional then the key may also be optional. If the first argument is a `Map[String, Y]`, `Struct`, or `Object`, then the key may be either a `String` or `Array[String]`.
+
+**Returns**: `true` if the collection contains the key, otherwise false.
+
+**Example**
+
+<details>
+  <summary>
+  Example: get_values.wdl
+
+  ```wdl
+  version 1.2
+
+  struct Person {
+    String name
+    Map[String, String]? details
+  }
+
+  workflow get_ints_and_exts {
+    input {
+      Map[String, Int] m
+      String key1
+      String key2
+      Person p1
+      Person p2
+    }
+
+    output {
+      Int? i1 = m[s1] if contains_key(m, key1) else None
+      Int? i2 = m[s2] if contains_key(m, key2) else None
+      String? phone1 = p1.details["phone"] if contains_key(p1, ["details", "phone"]) else None
+      String? phone2 = p2.details["phone"] if contains_key(p2, ["details", "phone"]) else None
+    }
+  }
+  ```
+  </summary>
+  <p>
+  Example input:
+
+  ```json
+  {
+    "get_values.m": {"a": 1, "b": 2},
+    "get_values.key1": "a",
+    "get_values.key2": "c",
+    "get_values.p1": {
+      "name": "John",
+      "details": {
+        "phone": "123-456-7890"
+      }
+    },
+    "get_values.p2": {
+      "name": "Agent X"
+    }
+  }
+  ```
+
+  Example output:
+
+  ```json
+  {
+    "get_ints_and_exts.i1": 1,
+    "get_ints_and_exts.i2": null,
+    "get_ints_and_exts.phone1": "123-456-7890",
+    "get_ints_and_exts.phone2": null,
+  }
+  ``` 
+  </p>
+</details>
+
+
+```
+Map[P, Y], P), Boolean contains_key(Map[P?, Y], P?)
+```
+
+Given a key-value type collection (`Map`, `Struct`, or `Object`) and a key, tests whether the collection contains an entry with the given key.
+
+**Parameters**
+
+1. `Map[P, Y]`|`Struct`|`Object`: Collection to search for the key.
+2. `P|Array[String]`: The key to search. If the first argument is a `Map`, then the key must be of the same type as the `Map`'s key type. If the `Map`'s key type is optional then the key may also be optional. If the first argument is a `Map[String, Y]`, `Struct`, or `Object`, then the key may be either a `String` or `Array[String]`.
+
+**Returns**: `true` if the collection contains the key, otherwise false.
+
+**Example**
+
+<details>
+  <summary>
+  Example: get_values.wdl
+
+  ```wdl
+  version 1.2
+
+  struct Person {
+    String name
+    Map[String, String]? details
+  }
+
+  workflow get_ints_and_exts {
+    input {
+      Map[String, Int] m
+      String key1
+      String key2
+      Person p1
+      Person p2
+    }
+
+    output {
+      Int? i1 = m[s1] if contains_key(m, key1) else None
+      Int? i2 = m[s2] if contains_key(m, key2) else None
+      String? phone1 = p1.details["phone"] if contains_key(p1, ["details", "phone"]) else None
+      String? phone2 = p2.details["phone"] if contains_key(p2, ["details", "phone"]) else None
+    }
+  }
+  ```
+  </summary>
+  <p>
+  Example input:
+
+  ```json
+  {
+    "get_values.m": {"a": 1, "b": 2},
+    "get_values.key1": "a",
+    "get_values.key2": "c",
+    "get_values.p1": {
+      "name": "John",
+      "details": {
+        "phone": "123-456-7890"
+      }
+    },
+    "get_values.p2": {
+      "name": "Agent X"
+    }
+  }
+  ```
+
+  Example output:
+
+  ```json
+  {
+    "get_ints_and_exts.i1": 1,
+    "get_ints_and_exts.i2": null,
+    "get_ints_and_exts.phone1": "123-456-7890",
+    "get_ints_and_exts.phone2": null,
+  }
+  ``` 
+  </p>
+</details>
+
 ### `collect_by_key`
 
 ```

tests/README.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 Beginning with version 1.1.1, most of the examples in the WDL specification represent test cases.
 All of these tests conform to the [WDL Markdown Test Specification](https://github.com/openwdl/wdl-tests/docs/MarkdownTests.md).
-The tests extracted from the WDL specs can be found in the [wdl-tests](https://github.com/openwdl/wdl-tests/spec/) repository.
-This folder contains the [test input files](data/) that are referenced by the test cases in the spec.
+The tests extracted from the WDL specs can be found in the [wdl-tests](https://github.com/openwdl/wdl-tests/) repository.
+This folder contains the [test input files](data/) that are referenced by the test cases in the spec.