[31] How to create multiple fields with same name?

Hey again @affectiosus ,

While it is possible to create duplicate (in section and field name) fields in the 1P app and the webapp, it is not currently possible in the CLI.

The reason is because op item edit <ITEM> command will assume that if a section and field matches, it will be an overwrite instead of creating a new field, which fits most use case but not your specific one. While we don't have any plans to change this currently, I wonder if a flag such as --force-new-fields could work to create new fields even when the field already has a match. What do you think about that?

Also, is the condition of having identical section/field names mandatory for you? Otherwise I encourage you to consider adding a counter var in your for loop and adding it to the name, like:


for i in {0..10}; do
op item edit MyItem totpRecovery$i=$recoveryCode
done


No, not mandatory, and in the end I did resort to something similar to your code.

Regarding the flag, it would probably be a nice addition, but may result in a suboptimal experience depending on the defaults chosen. I.e. personally I'm not currently sure whether I'd prefer adding or overwriting as default behavior.

Thanks for your input @affectiosus ,

In that case I think we will leave it as it for the time being, and I'm happy to hear you found a work around with variables in item field names!

I believe the UX friction here originates from the current item structure being key-value pairs of name and value. This requires you to have a name for each field.

In your use case of recovery codes, the name ("recovery codes") refers to a set of values. There is no separate, different name for each of the recovery codes (although you can work around that by giving each recovery code a number).

Would it be helpful if we would support a field type that can have multiple values? e.g. a set or list


op item edit recovery_codes[set[password]]=[code_1,code2...,code10]


I think that would be cool from CLI perspective, but how would that look like in the UI?