Not sure if there is a way to get the desired output using Jinja syntax in my case.
I’m fine using the old style variable syntax for now unless this behavior is likely to change in future releases.
Yep, we know about the reference thing and are going to find a good syntactical answer for it.
One is probably radically simplifying the Jinja2 code (there are some hacks in there that shouldn’t be) so “{{” operations can keep their types unless it’s very obvious it’s the “end result” time where they need to be a string.