I really searched a while here, but didn't found an adequate answer:
I am trying to unmarshall yaml dict keys onto a property of a struct rather than the key of a map.
Given this yaml
commands:
php:
service: php
bin: /bin/php
node:
service: node
bin: /bin/node
I am able to unmarshall this into a struct like this:
type Config struct {
Commands map[string]struct {
Service string
Bin string
}
}
But how am I able to unmarshall it into a struct like this:
type Config struct {
Commands []struct {
Name string // <-- this should be key from the yaml (i.e. php or node)
Service string
Bin string
}
}
Thx in advance for the help
You can write a custom unmarshaler, like this (on Go playground):
package main
import (
"fmt"
"gopkg.in/yaml.v3"
)
var input []byte = []byte(`
commands:
php:
service: php
bin: /bin/php
node:
service: node
bin: /bin/node
`)
type Command struct {
Service string
Bin string
}
type NamedCommand struct {
Command
Name string
}
type NamedCommands []NamedCommand
type Config struct {
Commands NamedCommands
}
func (p *NamedCommands) UnmarshalYAML(value *yaml.Node) error {
if value.Kind != yaml.MappingNode {
return fmt.Errorf("`commands` must contain YAML mapping, has %v", value.Kind)
}
*p = make([]NamedCommand, len(value.Content)/2)
for i := 0; i < len(value.Content); i += 2 {
var res = &(*p)[i/2]
if err := value.Content[i].Decode(&res.Name); err != nil {
return err
}
if err := value.Content[i+1].Decode(&res.Command); err != nil {
return err
}
}
return nil
}
func main() {
var f Config
var err error
if err = yaml.Unmarshal(input, &f); err != nil {
panic(err)
}
for _, cmd := range f.Commands {
fmt.Printf("%+v\n", cmd)
}
}
I have split the command data into Command and NamedCommand to make the code simpler, since you can just call Decode giving the embedded Command struct for the values. If everything was in the same struct, you'd need to manually map keys to struct fields.
Related
I am working with lot of config files. I need to read all those individual config file in their own struct and then make one giant Config struct which holds all other individual config struct in it.
Let's suppose if I am working with 3 config files.
ClientConfig deals with one config file.
DataMapConfig deals with second config file.
ProcessDataConfig deals with third config file.
I created separate class for each of those individual config file and have separate Readxxxxx method in them to read their own individual config and return struct back. Below is my config.go file which is called via Init method from main function after passing path and logger.
config.go
package config
import (
"encoding/json"
"fmt"
"io/ioutil"
"github.com/david/internal/utilities"
)
type Config struct {
ClientMapConfigs ClientConfig
DataMapConfigs DataMapConfig
ProcessDataConfigs ProcessDataConfig
}
func Init(path string, logger log.Logger) (*Config, error) {
var err error
clientConfig, err := ReadClientMapConfig(path, logger)
dataMapConfig, err := ReadDataMapConfig(path, logger)
processDataConfig, err := ReadProcessDataConfig(path, logger)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
return &Config{
ClientMapConfigs: *clientConfig,
DataMapConfigs: *dataMapConfig,
ProcessDataConfigs: *processDataConfig,
}, nil
}
clientconfig.go
package config
import (
"encoding/json"
"fmt"
"io/ioutil"
"github.com/david/internal/utilities"
)
type ClientConfig struct {
.....
.....
}
const (
ClientConfigFile = "clientConfigMap.json"
)
func ReadClientMapConfig(path string, logger log.Logger) (*ClientConfig, error) {
files, err := utilities.FindFiles(path, ClientConfigFile)
// read all the files
// do some validation on all those files
// deserialize them into ClientConfig struct
// return clientconfig object back
}
datamapconfig.go
Similar style I have for datamapconfig too. Exactly replica of clientconfig.go file but operating on different config file name and will return DataMapConfig struct back.
processdataConfig.go
Same thing as clientconfig.go file. Only difference is it will operate on different config file and return ProcessDataConfig struct back.
Problem Statement
I am looking for ideas where this above design can be improved? Is there any better way to do this in golang? Can we use interface or anything else which can improve the above design?
If I have let's say 10 different files instead of 3, then do I need to keep doing above same thing for remaining 7 files? If yes, then the code will look ugly. Any suggestions or ideas will greatly help me.
Update
Everything looks good but I have few questions as I am confuse on how can I achieve those with your current suggestion. On majority of my configs, your suggestion is perfect but there are two cases on two different configs where I am confuse on how to do it.
Case 1 After deserializing json into original struct which matches json format, I make another different struct after massaging that data and then I return that struct back.
Case 2 All my configs have one file but there are few configs which have multiple files in them and the number isn't fixed. So I pass regex file name and then I find all the files starting with that regex and then loop over all those files one by one. After deserializing each json file, I start populating another object and keep populating it until all files have been deserialized and then make a new struct with those objects and then return it.
Example of above scenarios:
Sample case 1
package config
import (
"encoding/json"
"fmt"
"io/ioutil"
"github.com/david/internal/utilities"
)
type CustomerManifest struct {
CustomerManifest map[int64]Site
}
type CustomerConfigs struct {
CustomerConfigurations []Site `json:"customerConfigurations"`
}
type Site struct {
....
....
}
const (
CustomerConfigFile = "abc.json"
)
func ReadCustomerConfig(path string, logger log.Logger) (*CustomerManifest, error) {
// I try to find all the files with my below utility method.
// Work with single file name and also with regex name
files, err := utilities.FindFiles(path, CustomerConfigFile)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
var customerConfig CustomerConfigs
// there is only file for this config so loop will run once
for _, file := range files {
body, err := ioutil.ReadFile(file)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
err = json.Unmarshal(body, &customerConfig)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
}
customerConfigIndex := BuildIndex(customerConfig, logger)
return &CustomerManifest{CustomerManifest: customerConfigIndex}, nil
}
func BuildIndex(customerConfig CustomerConfigs, logger log.Logger) map[int64]Site {
...
...
}
As you can see above in sample case 1, I am making CustomerManifest struct from CustomerConfigs struct and then return it instead of returning CustomerConfigs directly.
Sample case 2
package config
import (
"encoding/json"
"fmt"
"io/ioutil"
"github.com/david/internal/utilities"
)
type StateManifest struct {
NotionTemplates NotionTemplates
NotionIndex map[int64]NotionTemplates
}
type NotionMapConfigs struct {
NotionTemplates []NotionTemplates `json:"notionTemplates"`
...
}
const (
// there are many files starting with "state-", it's not fixed number
StateConfigFile = "state-*.json"
)
func ReadStateConfig(path string, logger log.Logger) (*StateManifest, error) {
// I try to find all the files with my below utility method.
// Work with single file name and also with regex name
files, err := utilities.FindFiles(path, StateConfigFile)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
var defaultTemp NotionTemplates
var idx = map[int64]NotionTemplates{}
// there are lot of config files for this config so loop will run multiple times
for _, file := range files {
var notionMapConfig NotionMapConfigs
body, err := ioutil.ReadFile(file)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
err = json.Unmarshal(body, ¬ionMapConfig)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
for _, tt := range notionMapConfig.NotionTemplates {
if tt.IsProcess {
defaultTemp = tt
} else if tt.ClientId > 0 {
idx[tt.ClientId] = tt
}
}
}
stateManifest := StateManifest{
NotionTemplates: defaultTemp,
NotionIndex: idx,
}
return &stateManifest, nil
}
As you can see above in my both the cases, I am making another different struct after deserializing is done and then I return that struct back but as of now in your current suggestion I think I won't be able to do this generically because for each config I do different type of massaging and then return those struct back. Is there any way to achieve above functionality with your current suggestion? Basically for each config if I want to do some massaging, then I should be able to do it and return new modified struct back but for some cases if I don't want to do any massaging then I can return direct deserialize json struct back. Can this be done generically?
Since there are config which has multiple files in them so that is why I was using my utilities.FindFiles method to give me all files basis on file name or regex name and then I loop over all those files to either return original struct back or return new struct back after massaging original struct data.
You can use a common function to load all the configuration files.
Assume you have config structures:
type Config1 struct {...}
type Config2 struct {...}
type Config3 struct {...}
You define configuration validators for those who need it:
func (c Config1) Validate() error {...}
func (c Config2) Validate() error {...}
Note that these implement a Validatable interface:
type Validatable interface {
Validate() error
}
There is one config type that includes all these configurations:
type Config struct {
C1 Config1
C2 Config2
C3 Config3
...
}
Then, you can define a simple configuration loader function:
func LoadConfig(fname string, out interface{}) error {
data, err:=ioutil.ReadFile(fname)
if err!=nil {
return err
}
if err:=json.Unmarshal(data,out); err!=nil {
return err
}
// Validate the config if necessary
if validator, ok:=out.(Validatable); ok {
if err:=validator.Validate(); err!=nil {
return err
}
}
return nil
}
Then, you can load the files:
var c Config
if err:=LoadConfig("file1",&c.C1); err!=nil {
return err
}
if err:=LoadConfig("file2",&c.C2); err!=nil {
return err
}
...
If there are multiple files loading different parts of the same struct, you can do:
LoadConfig("file1",&c.C3)
LoadConfig("file2",&c.C3)
...
You can simplify this further by defining a slice:
type cfgInfo struct {
fileName string
getCfg func(*Config) interface{}
}
var configs=[]cfgInfo {
{
fileName: "file1",
getCfg: func(c *Config) interface{} {return &c.C1},
},
{
fileName: "file2",
getCfg: func(c *Config) interface{} {return &c.C2},
},
{
fileName: "file3",
getCfg: func(c *Config) interface{} {return &c.C3},
},
...
}
func loadConfigs(cfg *Config) error {
for _,f:=range configs {
if err:=loadConfig(f.fileName,f.getCfg(cfg)); err!=nil {
return err
}
}
return nil
}
Then, loadConfigs would load all the configuration files into cfg.
func main() {
var cfg Config
if err:=loadConfigs(&cfg); err!=nil {
panic(err)
}
...
}
Any configuration that doesn't match this pattern can be dealt with using LoadConfig:
var customConfig1 CustomConfigStruct1
if err:=LoadConfig("customConfigFile1",&customConfig1); err!=nil {
panic(err)
}
cfg.CustomConfig1 = processCustomConfig1(customConfig1)
var customConfig2 CustomConfigStruct2
if err:=LoadConfig("customConfigFile2",&customConfig2); err!=nil {
panic(err)
}
cfg.CustomConfig2 = processCustomConfig2(customConfig2)
I'm trying to unmarshal the following YAML data into Go structures.
The data is the in the following format:
fetchers:
- type: "aws"
config:
omega: "lul"
- type: "kubernetes"
config:
foo: "bar"
Based of the type field, I want to determine wether to unmarshal the config field into awsConfig or kubernetesConfig struct.
My current code looks like this (using "gopkg.in/yaml.v2"):
type kubernetesConfig struct {
foo string `yaml:"foo"`
}
type awsConfig struct {
omega string `yaml:"omega"`
}
var c struct {
Fetchers []struct {
Type string `yaml:"type"`
Config interface{} `yaml:"config"`
} `yaml:"fetchers"`
}
err := yaml.Unmarshal(data, &c)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
for _, val := range c.Fetchers {
switch val.Type {
case "kubernetes":
conf := val.Config.(kubernetesConfig)
fmt.Println(conf.foo)
case "aws":
conf := val.Config.(awsConfig)
fmt.Println(conf.omega)
default:
log.Fatalf("No matching type, was type %v", val.Type)
}
}
Code in playground: https://go.dev/play/p/klxOoHMCtnG
Currently it gets unmarshalled as map[interface {}]interface {}, which can't be converted to one of the structs above.
Error:
panic: interface conversion: interface {} is map[interface {}]interface {}, not main.awsConfig \
Do I have to implemented the Unmarshaler Interface of the YAML package with a custom UnmarshalYAML function to get this done?
Found the solution by implementing Unmarshaler Interface:
type Fetcher struct {
Type string `yaml:"type"`
Config interface{} `yaml:"config"`
}
// Interface compliance
var _ yaml.Unmarshaler = &Fetcher{}
func (f *Fetcher) UnmarshalYAML(unmarshal func(interface{}) error) error {
var t struct {
Type string `yaml:"type"`
}
err := unmarshal(&t)
if err != nil {
return err
}
f.Type = t.Type
switch t.Type {
case "kubernetes":
var c struct {
Config kubernetesConfig `yaml:"config"`
}
err := unmarshal(&c)
if err != nil {
return err
}
f.Config = c.Config
case "aws":
var c struct {
Config awsConfig `yaml:"config"`
}
err := unmarshal(&c)
if err != nil {
return err
}
f.Config = c.Config
}
return nil
}
This type of task - where you want to delay the unmarshaling - is very similar to how json.RawMessage works with examples like this.
The yaml package does not have a similar mechanism for RawMessage - but this technique can easily be replicated as outlined here:
type RawMessage struct {
unmarshal func(interface{}) error
}
func (msg *RawMessage) UnmarshalYAML(unmarshal func(interface{}) error) error {
msg.unmarshal = unmarshal
return nil
}
// call this method later - when we know what concrete type to use
func (msg *RawMessage) Unmarshal(v interace{}) error {
return msg.unmarshal(v)
}
So to leverage this in your case:
var fs struct {
Configs []struct {
Type string `yaml:"type"`
Config RawMessage `yaml:"config"` // delay unmarshaling
} `yaml:"fetchers"`
}
err = yaml.Unmarshal([]byte(data), &fs)
if err != nil {
return
}
and based on the config "Type" (aws or kubernetes), you can finally unmarshal the RawMessage into the correct concrete type:
aws := awsConfig{} // concrete type
err = c.Config.Unmarshal(&aws)
or:
k8s := kubernetesConfig{} // concrete type
err = c.Config.Unmarshal(&k8s)
Working example here: https://go.dev/play/p/wsykOXNWk3H
I have a struct defined for my Yaml file like so:
type Service struct {
ServiceName string `yaml:"service_name"`
PipelineType PipelineType `yaml:"pipeline_type"`
}
In the file, this struct comes in as a string:
service_name: service
pipeline_type: app
My type is defined like this:
// PipelineType Pipeline Types
type PipelineType struct {
Value string
}
var (
AppPipeline = PipelineType{"app"}
...
)
Because of the type declaration, I'm getting the following error (expected):
line 4: cannot unmarshal !!str `app` into main.PipelineType
Is there a way to tell GoYAML, or create some form of consturctor to convert the value using string(PipelineType) or something similar?
Alternatively, is there a "GoYAML" friendly way to do this?
try this:
type Service struct {
ServiceName string `yaml:"service_name"`
PipelineType PipelineType `yaml:"pipeline_type"`
}
func (s *Service) myYml() *Service {
yamlFile, err := ioutil.ReadFile("service.yaml")
if err != nil {
log.Println(err.Error())
}
err = yaml.Unmarshal(yamlFile, s)
if err != nil {
log.Println(err.Error())
}
return s
}
get it:
var s Service
s.myYml()
I have tried to parse HCL config using golang, but it's not working.
type cfg_dict struct {
name string `hcl:",key"`
type string `hcl:"type"`
}
type hcl_config struct {
config_items cfg_dict `hcl:"config"`
}
func main() {
hcl_example = `config "cfg1" {
type = "string"
}`
hcl_opts := &hcl_config{}
hcl_tree, err := hcl.Parse(hcl_example)
if err != nil {
fmt.Println(err)
os.Exit(1)
}
if err := hcl.DecodeObject(&hcl_opts, hcl_tree); err != nil {
fmt.Println(err)
os.Exit(1)
}
fmt.Println(hcl_opts)
}
When I tried to run this test code after built, it shows empty value.
&{[]}
Is there any problem what I have to fix?
Fields on the struct you are attempting to unmarshal from HCL need to be exported. To export the fields make the first character in the field name upper case.
type cfg_dict struct {
Name string `hcl:",key"`
Type string `hcl:"type"`
}
type hcl_config struct {
Config_items cfg_dict `hcl:"config"`
}
Trying to Unmarshal a hcl config file to a struct, using viper, this error is returned: 1 error(s) decoding:\n\n* 'NATS' expected a map, got 'slice'. What is missing?
The code:
func lab() {
var c conf
// config file
viper.SetConfigName("draft")
viper.AddConfigPath(".")
viper.SetConfigType("hcl")
if err := viper.ReadInConfig(); err != nil {
log.Error(err)
return
}
log.Info(viper.Get("NATS")) // gives [map[port:10041 username:cl1 password:__Psw__4433__ http_port:10044]]
if err := viper.Unmarshal(&c); err != nil {
log.Error(err)
return
}
log.Infow("got conf", "conf", c)
}
type conf struct {
NATS struct {
HTTPPort int
Port int
Username string
Password string
}
}
And the config file (draft.hcl inside current directory):
NATS {
HTTPPort = 10044
Port = 10041
Username = "cl1"
Password = "__Psw__4433__"
}
Edit
Have checked this struct with hcl package and it gets marshaled/unmarshalled correctly. Also this works correctly with yaml and viper.
There is a difference between these two where log.Info(viper.Get("NATS")) is called. While the hcl version returns a slice of maps, the yaml version returns a map: map[password:__psw__4433__ httpport:10044 port:10041 username:cl1].
Your conf struct is not matching the HCL. When converted to json the HCL looks like below
{
"NATS": [
{
"HTTPPort": 10044,
"Password": "__Psw__4433__",
"Port": 10041,
"Username": "cl1"
}
]
}
So the Conf Struct should look like this
type Conf struct {
NATS []struct{
HTTPPort int
Port int
Username string
Password string
}
}
Modified code
package main
import (
"log"
"github.com/spf13/viper"
"fmt"
)
type Conf struct {
NATS []struct{
HTTPPort int
Port int
Username string
Password string
}
}
func main() {
var c Conf
// config file
viper.SetConfigName("draft")
viper.AddConfigPath(".")
viper.SetConfigType("hcl")
if err := viper.ReadInConfig(); err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
fmt.Println(viper.Get("NATS")) // gives [map[port:10041 username:cl1 password:__Psw__4433__ http_port:10044]]
if err := viper.Unmarshal(&c); err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
fmt.Println(c.NATS[0].Username)
}
I know this question is more than two years old now, but I came across the same issue recently.
I'm using viper to be able to load different configuration files into a Go struct, allowing configuration in JSON, YAML, TOML, HCL, just pick your favourite :)
HCL file format does wrap a map into a slice because it allows redefining a section like:
section = {
key1 = "value"
}
section = {
key2 = "value"
}
which is something that is not supported by the other formats.
And here's how I fixed it:
My solution implies each new block will override any previous definition of the same key, and keep all the others. You can do some merging magic but I didn't need to.
You need to make a hook to convert a slice of maps into a map:
// sliceOfMapsToMapHookFunc merges a slice of maps to a map
func sliceOfMapsToMapHookFunc() mapstructure.DecodeHookFunc {
return func(from reflect.Type, to reflect.Type, data interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
if from.Kind() == reflect.Slice && from.Elem().Kind() == reflect.Map && (to.Kind() == reflect.Struct || to.Kind() == reflect.Map) {
source, ok := data.([]map[string]interface{})
if !ok {
return data, nil
}
if len(source) == 0 {
return data, nil
}
if len(source) == 1 {
return source[0], nil
}
// flatten the slice into one map
convert := make(map[string]interface{})
for _, mapItem := range source {
for key, value := range mapItem {
convert[key] = value
}
}
return convert, nil
}
return data, nil
}
}
then you need to create a DecodeHook:
configOption := viper.DecodeHook(mapstructure.ComposeDecodeHookFunc(
sliceOfMapsToMapHookFunc(),
mapstructure.StringToTimeDurationHookFunc(),
mapstructure.StringToSliceHookFunc(","),
))
the two other hooks are the default ones so you might want to keep them
then you pass the option to the Unmarshal method
viper.Unmarshal(&c, configOption)
With this method you don't need a slice around your structs or your maps. Also that makes it compatible with the other configuration file formats