-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 63
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a way to specify more non-standard-compliant fields to Request #50
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
re: #49 (comment)
things i tried:
r2
amap[string]interface{}
, and it's possible to extract the method, params, meta, and id, but then i needed to marshal all the extra fields into a*json.RawMessage
.r2
amap[string]*json.RawMessage
, and it's now possible to extract the extra fields, but the method, params, meta, and id now need an extra unmarshal.RequestField.Value
aninterface{}
so that the first option is easier (but didn't really try that because it felt inconsistent with theMeta
andParams
fields). it also defers the marshaling error to theMarshalJSON
, but that might not be such a big deal since both would happen at the.Call()
API level.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can't we just make
RequestField.Value
aninterface{}
? This seems like the easiest option. It does mean if you want to avoid marshalling on extra fields you can't. Is this acceptable?This seems like the best option for avoiding the extra work/allocations? It would also simplify our handling of detecting if params is JSON null? I'm a bit cognizant of "doubling" the work this does.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
totally acceptable (and in fact will make one particular test easier for us! haha), I just didn't want to start with an option that introduced inconsistency without checking with y'all.
it avoids the extra allocations, but introduces extra casts. the amount of work is roughly the same but it makes (our particular usage of) the interface a bit simpler due to the lack of the pre-marshaling for the extra fields.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oh wait, i lied: this unmarshaling option also adds extra marshaling: the params, id, and meta would now be fully deserialized by the
map[string]interface{}
, so now we would need to marshsal 'em back to a*json.RawMessage
orID
.