In the original https://blog.danslimmon.com/2019/07/15/do-nothing-scripting-the-key-to-gradual-automation/
the object/dict "context" is passed to each step. In your examples you pass a simple variable username.
Although the example only defines the "username" key in the context object/dict the role of
context can't be replaced by a simple "username" variable.
The purpose of context as I see it is to pass information between the stages. So stage one can add:
context["stage1key"] = "xrvzymbloq"
Then stage2 can use this stage1key when doing its stage 2 things.
A simple variable depending on how it's passed (reference, value) to a stage doesn't allow
the stage to make a change to the variable that is available to other stages. Also the choice
of the name "username" isn't valid once the value is changes to something like a key.
There is value in seeing this model written in other languages, but I suggest you implement it
with the original functionality that supports stages modifying and passing context between
stages.
In the original https://blog.danslimmon.com/2019/07/15/do-nothing-scripting-the-key-to-gradual-automation/
the object/dict "context" is passed to each step. In your examples you pass a simple variable username.
Although the example only defines the "username" key in the context object/dict the role of
context can't be replaced by a simple "username" variable.
The purpose of context as I see it is to pass information between the stages. So stage one can add:
Then stage2 can use this stage1key when doing its stage 2 things.
A simple variable depending on how it's passed (reference, value) to a stage doesn't allow
the stage to make a change to the variable that is available to other stages. Also the choice
of the name "username" isn't valid once the value is changes to something like a key.
There is value in seeing this model written in other languages, but I suggest you implement it
with the original functionality that supports stages modifying and passing context between
stages.