I have database and JSON models which use struct field annotation for various purposes, namely specifying enumerations, which values are acceptable for validations, etc.
A database model example:
type QRCode struct {
Algorithm string `json:"algorithm" gorm:"type:enum('hmac-sha3-256-v1')" validate:"oneof=hmac-sha3-256-v1"`
PublicCode []byte `json:"token" gorm:"size:32" validate:"len=32"`
UserType string `json:"user_type" gorm:"type:enum('admin','member')" validate:"one_of=admin member"`
gorm.Model
}
So in this case, there are a few different constants:
public key size, which I have in constants.QRCodePublicCodeLength
algorithm, which I have in constants.QRCodeAlgorithmV1
user type, which I have in constants.UserTypeAdmin and constants.UserTypeMember
It would be very nice to be able to embed these constants in the field tags so that there is truly one source of truth for everything, but I don't know if this is possible in Go.
Can I use constants in struct field tag definitions?
Can I use constants in struct field tag definitions?
No, this is not possible.
Related
Why we don't call person field as embedded?
“type user struct {
name string
email string
}
type admin struct {
person user // NOT Embedding
level string
}”
But in other cases like below we call it embedded:
“type user struct {
name string
email string
}
type admin struct {
user // Value Semantic Embedding
level string
}”
What I think is that person is also embedded like value/pointer semantic embedding. What I'm missing here?
Because that's how the Go language specification defines it:
A field declared with a type but no explicit field name is called an embedded field.
I can see how the term "embedded" would be confusing. After all, named and unnamed fields end up with the same memory layout, "embedded" into the parent struct. "Anonymous field" might have been a better name for it, but that's not the name that the Go language designers chose.
With the first code you can't treat an admin object as a user object, like using member access or type assertion. This also affects how an embedding struct satisfies interfaces.
For example, the following code works with proper embedding, but not a simple member struct:
var a admin
a.name = "asdfg"
u := a.(user)
I'm working on several web server projects in Go, and there is a common problem that I'm always facing. I know we can achieve something like polymorphism in Go with interfaces and methods, but many times I had a scenario that I needed polymorphism on some data-holder structs that (maybe) just had some common fields, and no methods at all.
For example consider a story writing platform, where each user can write short stories and novels:
type ShortStory struct {
Name string
ID int
Body string
}
type LongStory struct {
Name string
ID int
Chapters []string
}
Now I simply want to have a data layer function, say GetStories(), which fetches all stories written by a user from database.
func GetStories(id int) []SOME_TYPE {
...
}
There are really no methods that I want to have on my ShortStory and LongStory structs. I know I can add a dummy method and let them satisfy some Storier interface, then use that interface as return type. But since there is no method I would want on a data container model, adding a dummy method just for the language to enable a feature, seems like a poor design choice to me.
I can also make the function return []interface{}, but that's against the whole idea of "typed language" I believe.
Another way is to have two separate GetShortStories() and GetLongStories() methods, which return a slice of their own type. But at some point I would finally want to merge those two slices into one and there I would again need a []interface{}. Yes, I can return a JSON like:
{
"short_stories" : [...],
"long_stories" : [...]
}
But I want my json to be like:
[{...}, {...}, {...}]
And I wouldn't change my APIs because of a language's limits!
I'm not a pro in Go, so am I missing something here? Is there a Go-ish approach to this, or is it really bad language design on Golang's side?
If you cannot express what you want to do using the features of a language, you should first try to change the way you structure your program before blaming the language itself. There are concepts that cannot be expressed in Go but can be expressed well in other languages, and there are concepts you cannot express well in other languages but you can in Go. Change the way you solve the problem to effectively use the language.
One way you can address your problem is using a different type of struct:
type Story struct {
Name string
ID int
ShortBody string
Chapters []string
}
If the Chapters is empty, then it is a short story.
Another way:
type Story struct {
Name string
ID int
Content StoryContent
}
type StoryContent interface {
Type() string
}
type ShortStory interface {
StoryContent
Body() string
}
type LongStory interface {
StoryContent
Chapters() []string
}
etc.
I would like to define an object in a shared libary,
type Common struct {
field_a string
custom interface{}
}
where custom is expected to hold additional fields that the user of this common object might define in their file, e.g.,
// module-1
type Mod1Customs struct {
abc string
}
From here, I would like to be able to set Common.custom to Mod1Customs so that I can access both field_a and abc in the same way from within module-1. I would like to do the same thing for other modules that may define an entirely different struct to assign to custom though.
The general idea is to create an object of pre-defined defaults and allowing a bucket of sorts for the users of the object to add their own custom fields.
Is this possible?
What you seem to be looking for is embedding:
type Common struct {
FieldA string
}
type Mod1Customs struct {
Common
Abc string
}
Then Mod1Customs gets access to all of Common fields directly:
c := Mod1Customs{}
fmt.Println(c.FieldA)
fmt.Println(c.Abc)
See Embedding in Effective Go for more details.
If you have some functions that deal with Common fields (no matter what the struct), then you would implement that with an interface that declares the fields you need. Mod1Customs would automatically conform to that interface.
I have two structs, whose types are as follows:
type UserStruct struct {
UserID string `bson:"user_id" json:"user_id"`
Address string `bson:"address" json:"address"`
Email string `bson:"email" json:"email"`
CreatedAt time.Time `bson:"created_at" json:"created_at"`
PhoneNumber string `bson:"phone_number" json:"phone_number"`
PanCard string `bson:"pancard" json:"pancard"`
Details map[string]string `json:"details"`
}
type SecretsStruct struct {
UserID string `r:"user_id" json:"user_id"`
Secrets []string `r:"secrets" json:secrets`
Address string `r:"address" json:"address"`
Email string `r:"email"json:"email"`
CreatedAt time.Time `r:"created_at"json:"created_at"`
PhoneNumber string `r:"phone_number" json:"phone_number"`
PanCard string `r:"pancard" json:"pancard"`
}
I already have an instance of UserStruct. I want to copy the fields common to both structs from UserStruct to a new instance of SecretStruct, without using reflection.
Go is a statically typed language (and is not Python). If you want to copy fields between the structs, you must either cause code to be supplied at compile time which knows how to do this, or use the reflect library to perform the operation at runtime.
Note that I said "cause code to be supplied at compile time" because you don't have to explicitly write that code. You could use code generation to produce the copy code from the struct definitions, or from a higher-level definition (e.g. XML) which generates both the struct definition and the copying code.
However, good Go programmers prefer clear code over clever solutions. If this is a single localized requirement, writing a code generator to avoid "boilerplate" code is almost certainly overkill; its implementation will take longer than the code to copy the structs, and the associated complexity will introduce a risk of more bugs. Similarly, reflect-based solutions are complicated, not clear, and only recommended in cases where you require a generic or extensible solution, and where this cannot be fulfilled at compile time.
I recommend simply write the copying code, and add appropriate comments to the struct definitions and copy methods to ensure future maintainers are aware of their obligation to maintain the copy methods.
Example
// Define your types - bodies elided for brevity
// NOTE TO MAINTAINERS: if editing the fields in these structs, ensure
// the methods defined in source file <filename>.go are updated to
// ensure common fields are copied between structs on instantiation.
type UserStruct struct { ... }
type SecretStruct struct { ... }
// NewSecretStructFromUserStruct populates and returns a SecretStruct
// from the elements common to the two types. This method must be
// updated if the set of fields common to both structs is changed in
// future.
func NewSecretStructFromUserStruct(us *UserStruct) *SecretStruct {
// You should take care to deep copy where necessary,
// e.g. for any maps shared between the structs (not
// currently the case).
ss := new(SecretStruct)
ss.UserID = us.UserID
ss.Address = us.Address
ss.Email = us.Email
ss.CreatedAt = us.CreatedAt
ss.PhoneNumber = us.PhoneNumber
ss.PanCard = us.PanCard
return ss
}
// You may also consider this function to be better suited as
// a receiver method on UserStruct.
I am really stuck here with a seemingly trivial problem in Go:
I have a Golang microservice, which outputs data in json format. Let's say I have a simple struct with json tags for this result:
type Result struct {
Name string `json:"name"`
Age int `json:"age"`
}
In the code part where the data is actually pulled out of the database, I have a quite similar struct, like this:
type ResultBackend struct {
Name string `bson:"fullName"`
Age int `bson:"age"`
}
The struct fields are similar, except the different tags. I would like to keep things simple, and return just one struct from the backend service (ResultBackend), which can then be send as a JSON response, like this:
func process() Result {
var result ResultBackend
... do a MongoDB query here and store results in result variable ...
return result
}
This certainly would not work, because we have two different structs here.
Of course one solution would be to embed both tags in one struct like so:
type Result struct {
Name string `json:"name" bson:"fullName"`
Age int `json:"age bson:"age"`
}
and then use this struct in the main code and the "process" function.
This works, but this seems like "poisoning" the Result struct of the main code with the bson tags. What, for instance, if the backend result is a XML file? I'd have to add xml tags to the struct as well. Or maybe someday tags some very obsure database adapter.
This doesn't seem to be the cleanest approach in my eyes. I'd rather have a clean Result struct in the main code, and simply to a conversion from one struct to another.
Is there any easy way doing that, or do I really have to copy all the fields of a ResultBackend struct to a new Result struct and return that? Or I am trying to over-simplify my code here? :)
Cheers!
What I'd do is create a separate type for every "serialisation format" if you will. This approach has several advantages:
Your concerns are separated.
JSON un/marshalling doesn't interfere with BSON/XML, so you can add any kind of additional struct fields (like xml.Name for example).
You can actually create several such types for different APIs that need different parameters.
The only disadvantage I see is that it's more code and even more code to move data between those. Ultimately it's up to you and your application design. If you're sure that your JSON/BSON will stay the same, you can use one type. Otherwise, I'd recommend specialisation.
To those who want to add bson tags in golang struct, here is a tool which can be helpful. I have spent a whole day searching for this and I want others to save their valuable time.
You can convert the following struct
type Result struct {
Name string `json:"name"`
Age int `json:"age"`
}
into
type Result struct {
Name string `json:"name" bson:"fullName"`
Age int `json:"age bson:"age"`
}
With this tool, you can not only add bson tags but also
XML tags,
Define validation and scope
Format tag values
Apply transformation
skip unexported fields.
Go Modify Tags: https://github.com/fatih/gomodifytags
Cheers,