I am trying to create a function that takes a []byte and an interface{} (standing for the struct) and returns an interface{} as the struct type passed into the func.
Something like this:
package main
import (
"encoding/json"
)
func UnmarshalFromJSONArray(sms []byte,tt string) (interface{}) {
var ts = new(tt)
err := json.Unmarshal(sms,&ts)
if(err != nil) {
fmt.Println(err)
}
return sms
}
So that method would run something like this:
// let's say a struct has the following definition:
type MyStructType struct {
Id int
Name string
Desc string
}
// we can some how get its fully qualified class name (this may require reflection?) or pass it into the UnMarshal method direction some how.
mst := "package.MyStructType",
// and then assume a byte array ba that has JSON format for
ba := []byte(`{"Id":"3","Name":"Jack","Desc":"the man"}`)
stct := UnmarshalFromJSONArray(ba,mst)
MyStructureType out := stct
// leaving "stct" being the unmarshalled byte array which can be used like any other struct of type "MyStructureType"
The key being that I never need to know what the fields of MyStructureType are before unmarshalling. All I need are the name of the struct and some way to instance one and then populate it with JSON byte array data that matches its fields. Hopefully that is possible (it is trivial in java using reflection). So I want to basically unmarshal an anonymous struct type by it's name without needing to know what fields it has.
Any suggestions?
The short answer is that this is impossible. There is no string to type translator in Go. You can make a map of strings to reflect.Type's, but you would need to know the possible options ahead of time or you need to provide the caller with a way to register types (perhaps in init).
Assuming you have found a way to resolve the string to its reflect.Type, you can simply call reflect.New(typ).Interface() to get the pointer you need to pass to json.Unmarshal().
The best answer is to avoid trying this all together. Writing idiomatic Java in Go isn't really possible. If I knew more about your problem, I could give you a more idiomatic Go solution.
Related
I have a function that excepts parameter of type map[string]interface{} but I have variable of type map[string][]byte. my question is how can I convert map[string][]byte to map[string]interface{} in Go.
This is a common miss-expectation from go. In this case each element of the map needs to be converted to interface.
So here's a workaround with sample code:
func foo(arg map[string]interface{}){
fmt.Println(arg)
}
// msaToMsi convert map string array of byte to map string interface
func msaToMsi(msa map[string][]byte) map[string]interface{}{
msi := make(map[string]interface{}, len(msa))
for k, v := range msa {
msi[k] = v
}
return msi
}
func main() {
msa := map[string][]byte{"a": []byte("xyz")}
foo(msaToMsi(msa))
}
The solution would be similar for the following map or array conversion as well:
map[string]string to map[string]interface{}
[]string to [] interface {}
Etc..
Ok so to answer your question an interface in GO can be used where you are passing or receiving a object/struct of where you are not sure of its type.
For example:
type Human struct {
Name string
Age int
School string
DOB time.Time
}
type Animal struct {
Name string
HasTail bool
IsMamal bool
DOB time.Time
}
func DisplayData(dataType interface{}, data byte)
This Display Data function can Display any type of data, it takes data and a struct both of which the function doesn't know until we pass them in... The data could be a Human or an Animal, both having different values which can be mapped depending on which interface we pass to the function...
This means we can reuse the code to display any data as long as we tell the function the data type we want to map the data to and display (i.e. Animal or Human...)
In your case the solution would be to define the data type, the structure of the data in the byte as a struct and where you make the map instead of map[string][]byte
try changing to
map[string]YourDefinedStructure
and pass that to the function that accepts map[string]interface{}.
Hopefully this helps, the question although you supply data types is rather vague as a use case and nature of the function that accepts map[string]interface{} can affect the approach taken.
You don't really have to convert while passing your map[string][]byte to the function.
The conversion needs to happen at the point where you want to use the value from the map.
I am trying to understand the code that is used at my company. I am new to go lang, and I have already gone through the tutorial on their official website. However, I am having a hard time wrapping my head around empty interfaces, i.e. interface{}. From various sources online, I figured out that the empty interface can hold any type. But, I am having a hard time figuring out the codebase, especially some of the functions. I will not be posting the entire thing here, but just the minimal functions in which it has been used. Please bear with me!
Function (I am trying to understand):
func (this *RequestHandler) CreateAppHandler(rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) *foo.ResponseError {
var data *views.Data = &views.Data{Attributes: &domain.Application{}}
var request *views.Request = &views.Request{Data: data}
if err := json.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(request); err != nil {
logrus.Error(err)
return foo.NewResponsePropogateError(foo.STATUS_400, err)
}
requestApp := request.Data.Attributes.(*domain.Application)
requestApp.CreatedBy = user
Setting some context, RequestHandler is a struct defined in the same package as this code. domain and views are seperate packages. Application is a struct in the package domain. The following two structs are part of the package views:
type Data struct {
Id string `json:"id"`
Type string `json:"type"`
Attributes interface{} `json:"attributes"`
}
type Request struct {
Data *Data `json:"data"`
}
The following are part of the package json:
func NewDecoder(r io.Reader) *Decoder {
return &Decoder{r: r}
}
func (dec *Decoder) Decode(v interface{}) error {
if dec.err != nil {
return dec.err
}
if err := dec.tokenPrepareForDecode(); err != nil {
return err
}
if !dec.tokenValueAllowed() {
return &SyntaxError{msg: "not at beginning of value"}
}
// Read whole value into buffer.
n, err := dec.readValue()
if err != nil {
return err
}
dec.d.init(dec.buf[dec.scanp : dec.scanp+n])
dec.scanp += n
// Don't save err from unmarshal into dec.err:
// the connection is still usable since we read a complete JSON
// object from it before the error happened.
err = dec.d.unmarshal(v)
// fixup token streaming state
dec.tokenValueEnd()
return err
}
type Decoder struct {
r io.Reader
buf []byte
d decodeState
scanp int // start of unread data in buf
scan scanner
err error
tokenState int
tokenStack []int
}
Now, I understood that, in the struct Data in package views, Application is being set as a type for the empty interface. After that, a pointer to Request in the same package is created which points to the variable data.
I have the following doubts:
What exactly does this keyword mean in Go? What is the purpose of writing this * RequestHandler?
Initialization of a structure in Go can be done while assigning it to a variable by specifying the values of all it's members. However, here, for the struct Data, only the empty interface value is assigned and the values for the other two fields are not assigned?
What is the advantage of assigning the Application struct to an empty interface? Does it mean I can use the struct members using the interface variable directly?
Can someone help me figure out the meaning of this statement? json.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(request)?
While I know this is too much, but I am having a hard time figuring out the meaning of interfaces in Go. Please help!
this is not a keyword in go; any variable name can be used there. That is called the receiver. A function declared in that way must be called like thing.func(params), where "thing" is an expression of the type of the receiver. Within the function, the receiver is set to the value of thing.
A struct literal does not have to contain values for all the fields (or any of them). Any fields not explicitly set will have the zero value for their types.
As you said, an empty interface can take on a value of any type. To use a value of type interface{}, you would use type assertion or a type switch to determine the type of the value, or you could use reflection to use the value without having to have code for the specific type.
What specifically about that statement do you not understand? json is the name of a package in which the function NewDecoder is declared. That function is called, and then the Decode function (which is implemented by the type of the return value of NewDecoder) is called on that return value.
You may want to take a look at Effective Go and/or The Go Programming Language Specification for more information.
I'm following up on Golang Decoding Generic JSON Objects to One of Many Formats as a way to unmarshal generic json. I'm going to have a multitude of different types tho which can be added by others, so hardcoding case statements is not feasible.
I also don't want to hardcode the type as a string, but let the ones using the library chose the "lookup" name, in case they want to rename their underlying structs later.
I am basically looking for something like this:
type myInterface interface {
Something() // irrelevant, just to show you It's not about interface{}
}
type myBar struct {} // fulfils myInterface
type mySomething struct {} // fulfils myInterface
var types = make(map[string]type) // <--- Obvious Pseudo code ;)
types["foo:bar"] = myBar // done by whoever uses the library
types["1230988"] = mySomething // ...
type storageWrapper struct {
Type string
Data json.RawMessage
}
func loadSomething(id string) myInterface {
buf := db.load(id) // pseudo code but you get the idea
sw := &storageWrapper{}
json.Unmarshal(buf, sw)
// now the interesting part
targetType := types[sw.Type]
thing := &targetType{}
json.Unmarshal(sw.Data, thing)
return thing
}
I have this feeling that I'm overthinking the whole Problem. Or that I'm trying to bend Go into something that conflicts with its underlying philosophy. I'm very open and thankful for any advice that suggests a different approach to the whole Problem
Have types be a map[string]myInterface, and to register a type, have callers store an empty value of that type (not a reference) into the map. Then, to unmarshal, you can "get the type" by copying the empty value out of the map, unmarshaling into it, and returning it (or a reference to it). The interface value will do the job of identifying which type is wanted. Plus, if users want to default some fields to non-zero/empty values in case they're not provided in the JSON, they can actually do that by storing those values within the struct in the type map.
Consider this code:
package main
import "fmt"
type specialString string
func printString(s string) {
fmt.Println(s)
}
// unlike, say, C++, this is not legal GO, because it redeclares printString
//func printString(s specialString) {
// fmt.Println("Special: " + s)
//}
func main() {
ss := specialString("cheese")
// ... so then why shouldn't this be allowed?
printString(ss)
}
My question is: why is the language defined so that the call to printString(ss) in main() is not allowed? (I'm not looking for answers that point to the Golang rules on assignment; I have already read them, and I see that both specialString and string have the same 'underlying type' and both types are 'named' -- if you consider the generic type 'string' to be named, which Golang apparently does -- and so they are not assignable under the rules.)
But why are the rules like that? What problem is solved by treating the built-in types as 'named' types, and preventing you from passing named types to all the standard library functions that accepting the same underlying built-in type? Does anybody know what the language designers had in mind here?
From my point of view, it seems to create a lot of pointless type conversion in the code, and discourages the use of strong typing where it actually would make sense..
I believe the initial authors' logic here is that named type is named for a reason - it represents something different, not just underlying type.
I guess I've read it somewhere in golang-nuts, but can't remember exact discussion.
Consider the following example:
type Email string
You named it Email, because you need to represent e-mail entity, and 'string' is just simplified representation of it, sufficient for the very start. But later, you may want to change Email to something more complex, like:
type Email struct {
Address string
Name string
Surname string
}
And that will break all your code that work with Email implicitly assuming it's a string.
This is because Go does not have class inheritance. It uses struct composition instead. Named types do not inherit properties from their underlying type (that's why it's not called "base type").
So when you declare a named type specialString with an underlying type of a predefined type string, your new type is a completely different type from the underlying one. This is because Go assumes you will want to assign different behaviors to your new type, and will not check its underlying type until run-time. This is why Go is both a static and dynamic language.
When you print
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(ss)) // specialString
You get specialString, not string. If you take a look at Println() the definition is as follows:
func Println(a ...interface{}) (n int, err error) {
return Fprintln(os.Stdout, a...)
}
This means you can print any predeclared types (int, float64, string) because all of them implements at least zero methods, which makes them already conform to the empty interface and pass as "printable", but not your named type specialString which remains unknown to Go during compile time. We can check by printing the type of our interface{} against specialString.
type specialString string
type anything interface{}
s := string("cheese")
ss := specialString("special cheese")
at := anything("any cheese")
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(ss)) // specialString
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(s)) // string
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(at)) // Wow, this is also string!
You can see that specialString keeps being naughty to its identity. Now, see how it does when passed into a function at run-time
func printAnything(i interface{}) {
fmt.Println(i)
}
fmt.Println(ss.(interface{})) // Compile error! ss isn't interface{} but
printAnything(ss) // prints "special cheese" alright
ss has become passable as interface{} to the function. By that time Go has already made ss an interface{}.
If you really want to understand deep down the hood this article on interfaces is really priceless.
It's called nominal typing. It simply means that the type is identified by it's name and it has to be made explicit to be useful.
From a convenience point of view it is easy to critique but it super useful.
For example, let's say you have a parameter to a function that is a string but it cannot be just any string, there are rules you need to check. If you change the type from string to something that implies that you checked the string for potential problems you made a good design decision because it's now clear from just looking at the code that the string needs to go via some function to validate the input first (and enrich it's type in the process).
type Validated string
func Validate(input string): (Validated, err) {
return Validated(input), nil // assuming you actually did validate the string
}
Go makes these tradeoffs because it does improve readability (i.e. the ability of someone unfamiliar with your code to quickly understand how things work) and that's something they (the Go language designers) value above all else.
I have a function like the following for querying a mongo database:
func findEntry(db, table string, entry *User, finder *bson.M) (err error) {
c := mongoSession.DB(db).C(table)
return c.Find(finder).One(entry)
}
I'd like to reuse the function for structs other than "User", by passing in a pointer to any instantiated struct object - just not quite sure of the proper semantics to do this. I think that I should be able to do this by making the 'entry' parameter an interface{} and then I'd need to use reflection to 'cast' it back to the original struct so the One() function call could properly fill in the struct on the call? Is there a 'better' way to accomplish this (please no flaming about lack of generics, I'm just looking for a practical solution using best practices).
Use this function:
func findEntry(db, table string, entry interface{}, finder bson.M) error {
c := mongoSession.DB(db).C(table)
return c.Find(finder).One(entry)
}
and call it like:
var user User
err := findEntry("db", "users", &user, bson.M{"name": "John"})
The type information for user is passed through findEntry to the One method. There's no need for reflection or a "cast" in findEntry.
Also, use bson.M instead of *bson.M. There's no need to use a pointer here.
I created an example on the playground to show that the type information is passed through findEntry.