Invert the special casing of JSON marshaling for Value #41
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
patjakdev
force-pushed
the
remove-explicit-marshal-json
branch
from
d230845 to
96d75ee
Compare
Entities and extension functions have both an "implict" and "explict" form of JSON serialization, where the "implicit" form is only valid if the serialized data can be unambiguously determined to be of a given type. This can happen positionally (e.g. EntityUIDs in the serialization of the Entities object) or via knowledge gleaned from a schema (which we don't yet support). It's _always_ safe to encode an entity or extension function via the "explicit" form, so let's make that the default. This also alleviates the types that don't have implicit and explicit forms from having to implement ExplicitMarshalJSON. With this approach, callers who know that it's safe to use the implicit form can do so and everyone else will get the safe explicit form. The two existing callers that use the implicit form are the JSON serialization of Entities and the scope operators which always take EntityUIDs. I've updated these to use the implicit form, which matches the behavior of the Rust SDK. At this time, I don't really see any reason to ever encode extension functions via the implicit form. Even if we had schema support, it just seems to save a few bytes and makes the JSON encoding mildly more legible, which shouldn't really be a goal of the JSON. FWIW, the Rust SDK doesn't seem to ever encode extension functions via the implicit form. Signed-off-by: Patrick Jakubowski <[email protected]>
patjakdev
force-pushed
the
remove-explicit-marshal-json
branch
from
96d75ee to
b79f219
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue #, if available: None
Description of changes:
Entities and extension functions have both an "implict" and "explict" form of JSON serialization, where the "implicit" form is only valid if the serialized data can be unambiguously determined to be of a given type. This can happen positionally (e.g. EntityUIDs in the serialization of the Entities object) or via knowledge gleaned from a schema (which we don't yet support).
It's always safe to encode an entity or extension function via the "explicit" form, so let's make that the default. This also alleviates the types that don't have implicit and explicit forms from having to implement
ExplicitMarshalJSON().With this approach, callers who know that it's safe to use the implicit form can do so and everyone else will get the safe explicit form. The two existing callers that use the implicit form are the JSON serialization of Entities and the scope operators which always take EntityUIDs. I've updated these to use the implicit form, which matches the behavior of the Rust SDK.
At this time, I don't really see any reason to ever encode extension functions via the implicit form. Even if we had schema support, it just seems to save a few bytes and makes the JSON encoding mildly more legible, which shouldn't really be a goal of the JSON. FWIW, the Rust SDK doesn't seem to ever encode extension functions via the implicit form.