Investigate making macros work better with the prototype kit

[joelanman]

From support, a checkbox item could look like this:

{ html: "Pension annex not uploaded",
value: "Pension annex not uploaded",
checked: (checked('reject','Pension annex not uploaded') == 'checked') },

In the kit we could make this much simpler.

1. If a value is not given, we could make it the same as the text.
2. We can manage checked automatically, by looking at the name and value and checking it against the stored data.

Leading to:

{ text: "Pension annex not uploaded"},

This would be relevant to other macros too.

I wonder if we can have macros in the prototype kit that try to do this extra work first, then call the Frontend macros. That way we keep in sync with Frontend macros.

[NickColley]

I did a small experiment how downstream macros can wrap upstream components, which might help this: https://glitch.com/edit/#!/downstream-nunjucks-macro-example

Since we have control over the kit we could add options merging custom functions to make it more robust.

[joelanman]

I think a question here is if we did this (and it seems very useful to do so) how would we document it in the design system? The nunjucks tab would be different for prototyping and production.

[NickColley]

Yeah, we need to weigh up the overhead of a forked journey I guess

[hannalaakso]

This is relevant: #624

[ruthhammond]

@joelanman to look for related ticket raised by Ollie