I have a nested struct
type Posts struct {
Id int
CreatedAt time.Time
Data struct {
Title string
UserName string
}
}
I want to create a Data object but var innerData Posts.Data doesn't seem to work. I don't want to create separate Data struct because I'm planning to avoid name collusions by having multiple structs which will have different inner structs named Data.
You can't. Posts.Data isn't the name of a type. The only thing you could do is var innerData struct{ ... }, which I'm sure you don't want to because then you would have repetition and need to make changes in two places. Otherwise, you have to give it a name. That name doesn't have to be Data, it can be PostData or something to make it unique.
Related
I have a yaml file of a certain configuration which is read by the go program to build a struct object.
The struct itself looks like this
type YamlConfig struct {
Attributes map[string]struct {
Label string `yaml:"label"`
Type string `yaml:"type"`
Presence bool `yaml:"presence"`
Uniqueness bool `yaml:"uniqueness"`
Strip bool `yaml:"strip"`
Values []string `yaml:"values"`
Default string `yaml:"default"`
Multi bool `yaml:"multi"`
Searchable bool `yaml:"searchable"`
Pattern struct {
Value string `yaml:"value"`
Message string `yaml:"message"`
} `yaml:"pattern"`
Length struct {
Min int `yaml:"min"`
Max int `yaml:"max"`
} `yaml:"length"`
} `yaml:"attributes"`
}
I have that map of Attributes that can be anything from "name" to "whatever", that should represent and db table columns with their types.
My question is - can I somehow take that object, which is quite dynamic and may not include the data for all the attributes' properties and convert it somehow into a usable ORM model with Gorm or something?
Should I always define a model struct or is it possible to build structs dynamically?
I think you are already using yaml.Unmarshal() for parsing your yaml config, right?
When you unmarshall yaml into a struct, you can use empty interface instead of complete yaml struct
var config map[string]interface{}
yaml.Unrmarshal(configFile, &config)
fmt.Println(config["label"])
Let's say I have the following types.
type Contract struct {
Id string `json:"id" gorm:"column:uuid"`
Name string `json:"name" gorm:"column:name"`
Description string `json:"descr" gorm:"column:descr"`
ContractTypeId int `json:"contract_type_id" gorm:"column:contract_type_id"`
}
type ContractModel struct {
Id string `json:"id" gorm:"column:uuid"`
Name string `json:"name" gorm:"column:name"`
Description string `json:"descr" gorm:"column:descr"`
}
I have a SQL query using gorm to scan results into a contract object.
How can I map the values from the contract object into contractModel object?
I tried using the package go-automapper as such:
automapper.Map(contract, ContractModel{})
I want to drop the ContractTypeId.
Can I do this for multiple types in a list?
var contractModels []ContractModel
automapper.Map(contracts, &contractModels)
You can do either:
models := []ContractModel{}
automapper.Map(contracts, &models)
Or call automapper.Map in a loop:
models := make([]ContractModel, len(contracts))
for i := range contracts {
automapper.Map(contracts[i], &models[i])
}
You should be aware that automapper uses reflection behind the scenes and thus is much slower than straight forward non-polymorphic copying like #ThinkGoodly suggests. It's a totally fine solution if performance isn't top priority though.
Assume a JSON object with the general format
"accounts": [
{
"id": "<ACCOUNT>",
"tags": []
}
]
}
I can create a struct with corresponding json tags to decode it like so
type AccountProperties struct {
ID AccountID `json:"id"`
MT4AccountID int `json:"mt4AccountID,omitempty"`
Tags []string `json:"tags"`
}
type Accounts struct {
Accounts []AccountProperties `json:"accounts"`
}
But the last struct with just one element seems incorrect to me. Is there a way I could simply say type Accounts []AccountProperties `json:"accounts"` instead of creating an entire new struct just to decode this object?
You need somewhere to store the json string accounts. Using a:
var m map[string][]AccountProperties
suffices, though of course you then need to know to use the string literal accounts to access the (single) map entry thus created:
type AccountProperties struct {
ID string `json:"id"`
MT4AccountID int `json:"mt4AccountID,omitempty"`
Tags []string `json:"tags"`
}
func main() {
var m map[string][]AccountProperties
err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(data), &m)
fmt.Println(err, m["accounts"])
}
See complete Go Playground example (I had to change the type of ID to string and fix the missing { in the json).
As Dave C points out in comments, this is no shorter than just using an anonymous struct type:
var a struct{ Accounts []AccountProperties }
in terms of the Unmarshall call (and when done this way it's more convenient to use). Should you want to use an anonymous struct like this in a json.Marshall call, you'll need to tag its single element to get a lowercase encoding: without a tag it will be called "Accounts" rather than "accounts".
(I don't claim the map method to be better, just an alternative.)
I'm trying to parse some xml documents in Go. I need to define a few structs for this purpose, and my struct tags depend on a certain condition.
Imagine the following code (even though I know it won't work)
if someCondition {
type MyType struct {
// some common fields
Date []string `xml:"value"`
}
} else {
type MyType struct {
// some common fields
Date []string `xml:"anotherValue"`
}
}
var t MyType
// do the unmarshalling ...
The problem is that these two structs have lots of fields in common. The only difference is in one of the fields and I want to prevent duplication. How can I solve this problem?
You use different types to unmarshal. Basically, you write the unmarshaling code twice and either run the first version or the second. There is no dynamic solution to this.
The simplest is probably to handle all possible fields and do some post-processing.
For example:
type MyType struct {
DateField1 []string `xml:"value"`
DateField2 []string `xml:"anotherValue"`
}
// After parsing, you have two options:
// Option 1: re-assign one field onto another:
if !someCondition {
parsed.DateField1 = parsed.DateField2
parsed.DateField2 = nil
}
// Option 2: use the above as an intermediate struct, the final being:
type MyFinalType struct {
Date []string `xml:"value"`
}
if someCondition {
final.Date = parsed.DateField1
} else {
final.Date = parsed.DateField2
}
Note: if the messages are sufficiently different, you probably want completely different types for parsing. The post-processing can generate the final struct from either.
As already indicated, you must duplicate the field. The question is where the duplication should exist.
If it's just a single field of many, one option is to use embedding, and field shadowing:
type MyType struct {
Date []string `xml:"value"`
// many other fields
}
Then when Date uses the other field name:
type MyOtherType struct {
MyType // Embed the original type for all other fields
Date []string `xml:"anotherValue"`
}
Then after unmarshaling of MyOtherType, it's easy to move the Date value into the original struct:
type data MyOtherType
err := json.Unmarshal(..., &data)
data.MyType.Date = data.Date
return data.MyType // will of MyType, and fully populated
Note that this only works for unmarshaling. If you need to also marshal this data, a similar trick can be used, but the mechanics around it must be essentially reversed.
I have big structure with more than 50 params
type Application struct {
Id int64 `json:"id"`
FullName string `json:"fullName,omitempty"`
ActualAddress string `json:"actualAddress,omitempty"`
.....
}
I use gin-gonic and when I return application I need to omit some params I've created a function which makes empty some params (playLink) and then gin returns me correct json (without unnecessary values). I heard that reflection isn't fast operation so in our case we can use a lot of ugly if-else or switch-cases. Is there any other solutions faster than reflecting and more beautiful than if-elses?
The thing is that structure params have non-empty values, so they wont by omitted by gin. That's why I've created function to make some params empty before return
The thing is, if you only want to zero a few fields, it's more readable to do it without a function, e.g.
app := Application{}
app.FullName, app.ActualAddress = "", ""
If you want to create a function for it, at least use variadic parameter, so it's easier to call it:
func zeroFields(application *Application, fields ...string) {
// ...
}
So then calling it:
zeroFields(&app, "FullName", "ActualAddress")
Yes, this will have to use reflection, so it's slower than it could be, and error prone (mistyped names can only be detected at runtime). If you want to avoid using reflection, pass the address of the fields:
func zeroFields(ps ...*string) {
for _, p := range ps {
*p = ""
}
}
This way you have compile-time guarantee that you type field names correctly, and that they have string type.
Calling it:
zeroFields(&application.FullName, &application.ActualAddress)
Try it on the Go Playground.
If I understand correctly: you want to return some values from your struct but not all of them? Perhaps a nested struct?
type Application struct {
ID struct {
ID int64 `json:"id"`
} `json:"id"`
Person struct {
Fullname string `json:"Fullname"
} `json:"person"
}
That should let you filter out the fields you want to use.