Suggested patch for a shorthand definition of quoted fields in http_urllib

[otdftr]

When working with a greater number of transformed fields (e. g. through topic's alldata), the params definition for the target has a lot of redundancy, especially when the field names are crafted to be the parameter names of the query parameters:

This patch provides a shorthand for a definition like [ #method, #url, { 'param1' : '@param1', ..., 'paramN': '@paramN' }, ... by allowing lists for the 3rd parameter of the target definition: [ #method, #url, [ '?param1', ..., '?paramN' ], ...

If a list is provided

• the given names will be used as both keys do item.data{} and query parameter names
• they will be added as quoted fields, regardless of whether the @-prefix is provided: [ 'param1', ..., 'paramN' ] will be interpreted as [ '@param1', ..., '@paramN' ]
• with the prefix ?, fields can be declared optional: they will not be included in the query if the data is invalid or missing from item.data{}; [ 'param1', '?param2', ... ]

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 13 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 49.60%. Comparing base (9d61fc5) to head (675fbb0).

Files	Patch %	Lines
mqttwarn/services/http_urllib.py	0.00%	13 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #693 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 49.75% 49.60% -0.15% ========================================== Files 81 81 Lines 4034 4046 +12 ========================================== Hits 2007 2007 - Misses 2027 2039 +12 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/mqtt-tools/mqttwarn/pull/693/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mqtt-tools) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/mqtt-tools/mqttwarn/pull/693/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mqtt-tools) | `49.60% <0.00%> (-0.15%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mqtt-tools#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[amotl]

Dear Olaf,

thanks for your contribution, I like it. While I don't have any objections about merging this improvement, I would like to have @jpmens and @sumnerboy12 the final voice on it.

With kind regards, Andreas.

[amotl]

I think this can be merged. However, would it be possible to come up with corresponding test cases so the new code and functionality will be covered properly?