Check if struct field is empty - go

I would like to iterate over the fields of a struct after unmarshalling a JSON object into it and check for the fields whose value was not set (i.e. are empty).
I can get the value of each field and compare that to the reflect.Zero value for the corresponding type
json.Unmarshal([]byte(str), &res)
s := reflect.ValueOf(&res).Elem()
typeOfT := s.Type()
for i := 0; i < s.NumField(); i++ {
f := s.Field(i)
v := reflect.ValueOf(f.Interface())
if (reflect.DeepEqual(v.Interface(), reflect.Zero(v.Type()).Interface())) {
....
But the problem, of course, is that this will not work well for bool or int values.
If a bool field is set to false in the JSON or an int field is set to 0, they will be equal to the zero value of their type. The aforementioned check will consider the fields to be uninitialized, even though they actually have a value set.
I know one way around this is to use pointers, but I just don't see how that would be possible in this case as I'm working with reflect.Value types, not the actual struct.

As you've mentioned, you could use pointers.
The json package can handle unmarshalling values into pointers for you. You've not included the json payload you are trying to unmarshal, or the struct you are unmarshalling into, so I've made up an example.
// json
{
"foo": true,
"number_of_foos": 14
}
// go struct
type Foo struct {
Present bool `json:"foo"`
Num int `json:"number_of_foos"`
}
Here if the keys foo or number_of_foos is missing, then as you've correctly observed, the zero value (false/ 0) will be used. In general the best advice is to make use of the zero value. Create structures so that zero values of false are useful, rather than a pain.
This is not always possible, so changing the types of the fields in the Foo struct to be pointers will allow you to check the 3 cases you are after.
Present
Present and zero
Missing
here is the same struct with pointers:
// go struct
type Foo struct {
Present *bool `json:"foo"`
Num *int `json:"number_of_foos"`
}
Now you can check for presence of the value with fooStruct.Present != nil and if that condition holds, you can assume that the value in the field is the one you wanted.
There is no need to use the reflect package.

Another way of doing the same is by implementing json.Unmarshaler.
type MaybeInt struct {
Present bool
Value int
}
func (i *MaybeInt) UnmarshalJSON(bs []byte) error {
if e := json.Unmarshal(bs, &i.Value); e != nil {
return e
}
i.Present = true
return nil
}
You can then use MaybeInt in your top-level structure:
type Top struct {
N MaybeInt `json:"n"`
M MaybeInt `json:"m"`
}
func main() {
t := Top{}
if e := json.Unmarshal([]byte(` { "n": 4930 } `), &t); e != nil {
panic(e)
}
fmt.Println(t.N, t.M)
}
See it working on the playground

Try using the golang validator package. The validator package offers a required attribute that might do the required job for your need. The official documentation for required attribute states:
This validates that the value is not the data types default zero value. For numbers ensures value is not zero. For strings ensures value is not "". For slices, maps, pointers, interfaces, channels and functions ensures the value is not nil.
The example illustrating the same can be seen at: https://github.com/go-playground/validator/blob/v9/_examples/struct-level/main.go.
Hope this solves your requirement.

Related

How to assign to struct fields from an array of values in order?

I know you can create a struct with a literal, listing the fields in order:
type Foo struct {
A string
B string
C string
}
foo := Foo{ "foo", "bar", "baz" }
Is there any way to do the same thing dynamically? I have an array of values (actually an array of arrays) and I want to assign them to an array of structs in field order, and there are rather more than three fields. Is there a way to say "assign this struct's fields from this array of values in order"? I really don't want to write a bunch of structArray[i].field1 = dataArray[i][0]; structArray[i].field2 = dataArray[i][1], etc.
My thoughts so far have been to use reflect, which seems overkillish, or maybe to create an array of field names and build json strings and unmarshal them. Any better ideas?
With reflection you can write a function like this:
func populate(dst any, src any) {
v := reflect.ValueOf(dst)
if v.Type().Kind() != reflect.Pointer {
panic("dst must be a pointer")
}
v = v.Elem()
if v.Type().Kind() != reflect.Struct {
panic("dst must be a pointer to struct")
}
w := reflect.ValueOf(src)
if w.Type().Kind() != reflect.Slice {
panic("src must be a slice")
}
for i := 0; i < v.NumField(); i++ {
// in case you need to support source slices of arbitrary types
value := w.Index(i)
if value.Type().Kind() == reflect.Interface {
value = value.Elem()
}
v.Field(i).Set(value)
}
}
You must make sure that dst is addressable, hence pass a pointer to Foo into populate; and that the i-th element in the source slice is actually assignable to the corresponding i-th field in the struct.
The code above is in a quite simplified form. You can add additional checks to it, e.g. with CanAddr or AssignableTo, if you think callers may misbehave.
Call it like:
func main() {
f := Foo{}
populate(&f, []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"})
fmt.Println(f) // {foo bar baz}
}
Here's a playground that also shows that you can pass a slice of []any as the source slice, in case the struct fields aren't all the same type: https://go.dev/play/p/G8qjDCt79C7

How can I compare two structs of not the same type?

How can I check if two structs that are not of the same type are equal?
Meaning if we have struct of typeA and struct of typeB, if in both structs we have same amount of fields with the same types - they are equal.
type layoutA struct {
A int
}
type layoutB layoutA
reflect.TypeOf(layoutA{}) == reflect.TypeOf(layoutB{}) // false
cmp.Equal(layoutA{}, layoutB{}) // false
compareStructs(layoutA{}, layoutB{}) // true - need to find this function
cmp package -> "github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp"
If the order of the fields needs to match as well you can just check for "convertability" using the ConvertibleTo method of the reflect.Type type.
If the order doesn't matter then you'll have to compare each individual field, a bit more work, but still very basic. First check that both types have the same number of fields, then loop over the fields of one type and check that every field that's present in that type is also present in the other type by using the FieldByName method and then compare the types of those fields.
You can compare the field types by using reflection with something like this:
func compareStructs(s1 interface{}, s2 interface{}) bool {
type1 := reflect.TypeOf(s1)
type2 := reflect.TypeOf(s2)
numField1 := type1.NumField()
numField2 := type2.NumField()
if numField1 != numField2 {
return false
}
for i := 0; i < numField1; i++ {
field1 := type1.Field(i)
field2 := type2.Field(i)
if field1.Type != field2.Type {
return false
}
}
return true
}

Parse and validate "key1:value1; key2:value2" string to Go struct efficiently?

I have a "key1:value1; key2:value2" like string (string with key:value pattern concated by ;).
Now I wish to parse this string to a Go struct:
type CustomStruct struct {
KeyName1 string `name:"key1" somevalidation:"xxx"`
KeyName2 int `name:"key2" somevalidation:"yyy"`
}
In the above example, the struct tag defines the name of the key in the string and can provide some validation for its corresponding value (it can set a default value if validation fails). For instance, KeyName2 is an int value, so I wish the somevalidation can check whether the KeyName2 satisfy, let's say, greater than 30 and less equal than 100.
And in another senario, I can define another struct CustomStruct2 for string like key3:value3; key4:value4;
How can I archive this kind of requirement efficiently and elegantly?
I'll assume that you can parse the data to a map[string]interface{}.
Use the reflect package to set the fields. Here's the basic function:
// set sets fields in struct pointed to by pv to values in data.
func set(pv interface{}, data map[string]interface{}) {
// pv is assumed to be pointer to a struct
s := reflect.ValueOf(pv).Elem()
// Loop through fields
t := s.Type()
for i := 0; i < t.NumField(); i++ {
// Set field if there's a data value for the field.
f := t.Field(i)
if d, ok := data[f.Tag.Get("name")]; ok {
s.Field(i).Set(reflect.ValueOf(d))
}
}
}
This code assumes that the values in the data map are assignable to the corresponding field in the struct and that the first argument is a pointer to a struct. The code will panic if these assumptions are not true. You can protect against this by checking types and assignability using the reflect package.
playground example

How to resolve whether pass objects via interface{} have not initializated fields

I have problem with resolve whether object which was pass as interface to function hasn't initializated fields, like object which was defined as just someObject{} is a empty, because all fields, has value 0, or nil
Problem becomes more complicated if I pass diffrent objects, because each object have diffrent type field value so on this moment I don't find universal way to this.
Example
func main(){
oo := objectOne{}
ot := objectTwo{}
oth := objectThree{"blah" , "balbal" , "blaal"}
resolveIsNotIntialized(oo)
resolveIsNotIntialized(ot)
resolveIsNotIntialized(oth)
}
func resolveIsNotIntialized(v interface{}) bool{
// and below, how resolve that oo and ot is empty
if (v.SomeMethodWhichCanResolveThatAllFiledIsNotIntialized){
return true
}
return false
}
I want to avoid usage switch statement like below, and additional function for each object, ofcorse if is possible.
func unsmartMethod(v interface{}) bool{
switch v.(type){
case objectOne:
if v == (objectOne{}) {
return true
}
// and next object, and next....
}
return false
}
As Franck notes, this is likely a bad idea. Every value is always initialized in Go. Your actual question is whether the type equals its Zero value. Generally the Zero value should be designed such that it is valid. The better approach would generally be to create an interface along the lines of:
type ZeroChecker interface {
IsZero() bool
}
And then attach that to whatever types you want to check. (Or possibly better: create an IsValid() test instead rather than doing your logic backwards.)
That said, it is possible to check this with reflection, by comparing it to its Zero.
func resolveIsNotIntialized(v interface{}) bool {
t := reflect.TypeOf(v)
z := reflect.Zero(t).Interface()
return reflect.DeepEqual(v, z)
}
(You might be able to get away with return v == z here; I haven't thought through all the possible cases.)
I don’t think there is a good reason (in idiomatic Go) to do what you are trying to do. You need to design your structs so that default values (nil, empty string, 0, false, etc.) are valid and represent the initial state of your object. Look at the source of the standard library, there are lots of examples of that.
What you are suggesting is easily doable via Reflection but it will be slow and clunky.
You could narrow the type which your function takes as an argement a little, not take an interface{} but accept one that allows you to check for non-zero values, say type intercae{nonZero() bool} as in the example code below. This will not tell you explicitly that it hasn't been set to the zero value, but that it is not zero.
type nonZeroed interface {
nonZero() bool
}
type zero struct {
hasVals bool
}
func (z zero) nonZero() bool {
return z.hasVals
}
type nonZero struct {
val int
}
func (nz nonZero) nonZero() bool {
return nz.val != 0
}
type alsoZero float64
func (az alsoZero) nonZero() bool {
return az != 0.0
}
func main() {
z := zero{}
nz := nonZero{
val: 1,
}
var az alsoZero
fmt.Println("z has values:", initialized(z))
fmt.Println("nz has values:", initialized(nz))
fmt.Println("az has values:", initialized(az))
}
func initialized(a nonZeroed) bool {
return a.nonZero()
}
Obviously as the type get more complex additional verification would need to be made that it was "nonZero". This type of pattern could be used to check any sort condition.

How to sort struct fields in alphabetical order

How could I get an output of struct, sorted by fields?
type T struct {
B int
A int
}
t := &T{B: 2, A: 1}
doSomething(t)
fmt.Println(t) // &{1 2} --> Sorted by fields
A struct is an ordered collection of fields. The fmt package uses reflection to get the fields and values of a struct value, and generates output in the order in which they were defined.
So the simplest solution would be to declare your type where you already have your fields arranged in alphabetical order:
type T struct {
A int
B int
}
If you can't modify the order of fields (e.g. memory layout is important), you can implement the Stringer interface by specifying a String() method for your struct type:
func (t T) String() string {
return fmt.Sprintf("{%d %d}", t.A, t.B)
}
The fmt package checks if the passed value implements Stringer, and if it does, calls its String() method to generate the output.
Cons of this solution is that this is not flexible (e.g. if you add a new field, you have to update the String() method too), also you have to do it for every struct type you want it to work (and you can't define methods for types defined in other packages).
The completely flexible solution can use reflection. You can get the names of fields, sort them by name, and then iterate over the sorted names and get the field values (by name).
Pros of this solution is that this works for any struct, and it keeps working without modification even if you add or remove fields from your structs. It also works for fields of any type, not just for int fields.
Here is an example how to do it (try it on the Go Playground):
func printFields(st interface{}) string {
t := reflect.TypeOf(st)
names := make([]string, t.NumField())
for i := range names {
names[i] = t.Field(i).Name
}
sort.Strings(names)
v := reflect.ValueOf(st)
buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
buf.WriteString("{")
for i, name := range names {
val := v.FieldByName(name)
if !val.CanInterface() {
continue
}
if i > 0 {
buf.WriteString(" ")
}
fmt.Fprintf(buf, "%v", val.Interface())
}
buf.WriteString("}")
return buf.String()
}
Make T implement the Stringer interface (see package fmt) and do either print A orb B first.
BTW. This is a stupid idea.

Resources