encoding/base64 and encoding/hex both support nearly the same set of functions, but base64 uses a class-based encoder, whereas hex exports the methods at the top level. Is there a simple way to create a wrapper around hex so that you can work with an abstracted encoding interface? More generally, is there a way to do the equivalent of binding a method to a struct? (e.g., SomeStruct.Encode = hex.Encode)
So far, I had to define functions on a hexEncoder struct with the same signature as the hex functions. I created an interface like this:
type Encoding interface {
Decode(dst, src []byte) (n int, err error)
DecodedLen(n int) int
Encode(dst, src []byte) // base64 returns nothing, hex returns int
EncodedLen(n int) int
}
which works perfectly with base64.StdEncoding, but I wasn't clear on how to wrap the hex methods. I created an empty struct for hex:
// wrap hex encoding/decoding so that it can be used interchangeably with base64 encoding
type hexEncoder struct {}
func (h hexEncoder) Decode(dst, src []byte) (n int, err error) {
return hex.Decode(dst, src)
}
func (h hexEncoder) DecodedLen(n int) int {
return hex.DecodedLen(n)
}
func (h hexEncoder) Encode(dst, src []byte) {
hex.Encode(dst, src) // don't return the int to match Encoding
}
func (h hexEncoder) EncodedLen(n int) int {
return hex.EncodedLen(n)
}
This works, but it's a bunch of extra boiler plate (where all that really needs to be wrapped is hex.Encode). Is there a better way to do this? Ultimately, the goal is to be able to use hex and base64 interchangeably with encoding/decoding, like in something like this:
func convert(src []byte, decoder Encoding, encoder Encoding) ([]byte, error) {
temp := make([]byte, decoder.DecodedLen(len(src)))
n, err := decoder.Decode(temp, src)
if err != nil {
return temp, err
}
dst := make([]byte, encoder.EncodedLen(len(src)))
encoder.Encode(dst, temp[:n])
return dst, nil
}
No, there is no better way to implement an interface that dispatches to functions in another package, and to be honest I cannot really imagine how a better way would look like.
What you're saying in that wrapper is:
type myType struct{}
func (myType) WhenCalledLikeThis() { DoThat() }
Which seems optimal. It doesn't need any backing memory, allows slight changes in naming and return values (as you've done for Encode), and dispatches with a single call.
Related
I'm trying to understand various coding architectures by looking into various public codes. One of which is the mime/multipart implementation by the Go team.
The below snippet is what I've seen. https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.19.3:src/mime/multipart/formdata.go;l=156
func (r *Reader) ReadForm(maxMemory int64) (*Form, error) {
return r.readForm(maxMemory)
}
func (r *Reader) readForm(maxMemory int64) (_ *Form, err error) {
form := &Form{make(map[string][]string), make(map[string][]*FileHeader)}
defer func() {
if err != nil {
form.RemoveAll()
}
}()
// Reserve an additional 10 MB for non-file parts.
maxValueBy
...more code here
I've read through some stuff about SOLID, DRY, public/ private relationships so I can't say I know a lot of best practices/ common strategies.
Looking at the above, it looks to me like its a function that makes a private function public.
The only thing that comes to my mind is that its purely for documentation sake? But nothing concrete in my mind.
So what I'm struggling to understand here is what's the benefit of doing so?
Thank you all for taking the time to read this.
Any comments/ reading suggestions is very much appreciated.
It is for the sake of the documentation. The PR comment explains:
Named returned values should only be used on public funcs and methods when it contributes to the documentation.
Named return values should not be used if they're only saving the programmer a few lines of code inside the body of the function, especially if that means there's stutter in the documentation or it was only there so the programmer could use a naked return statement. (Naked returns should not be used except in very small functions)
This change is a manual audit & cleanup of public func signatures.
To hide the return value names, the original function
func (r *Reader) ReadForm(maxMemory int64) (f *Form, err error) {
⋮
}
was changed to
func (r *Reader) ReadForm(maxMemory int64) (*Form, error) {
return r.readForm(maxMemory)
}
func (r *Reader) readForm(maxMemory int64) (_ *Form, err error) {
⋮
}
The error return value name can not be eliminated because a
deferred function accesses the error return value.
I need some help with unmarshaling. I have this example code:
package main
import (
"encoding/json"
"fmt"
)
type Obj struct {
Id string `json:"id"`
Data []byte `json:"data"`
}
func main() {
byt := []byte(`{"id":"someID","data":["str1","str2"]}`)
var obj Obj
if err := json.Unmarshal(byt, &obj); err != nil {
panic(err)
}
fmt.Println(obj)
}
What I try to do here - convert bytes to the struct, where type of one field is []byte. The error I get:
panic: json: cannot unmarshal string into Go struct field Obj.data of
type uint8
That's probably because parser already sees that "data" field is already a slice and tries to represent "str1" as some char bytecode (type uint8?).
How do I store the whole data value as one bytes array? Because I want to unmarshal the value to the slice of strings later. I don't include a slice of strings into struct because this type can change (array of strings, int, string, etc), I wish this to be universal.
My first recommendation would be for you to just use []string instead of []byte if you know the input type is going to be an array of strings.
If data is going to be a JSON array with various types, then your best option is to use []interface{} instead - Go will happily unmarshal the JSON for you and you can perform checks at runtime to cast those into more specific typed variables on an as-needed basis.
If []byte really is what you want, use json.RawMessage, which is of type []byte, but also implements the methods for JSON parsing. I believe this may be what you want, as it will accept whatever ends up in data. Of course, you then have to manually parse Data to figure out just what actually IS in there.
One possible bonus is that this skips any heavy parsing because it just copies the bytes over. When you want to use this data for something, you use a []interface{}, then use a type switch to use individual values.
https://play.golang.org/p/og88qb_qtpSGJ
package main
import (
"encoding/json"
"fmt"
)
type Obj struct {
Id string `json:"id"`
Data json.RawMessage `json:"data"`
}
func main() {
byt := []byte(`{"id":"someID","data":["str1","str2", 1337, {"my": "obj", "id": 42}]}`)
var obj Obj
if err := json.Unmarshal(byt, &obj); err != nil {
panic(err)
}
fmt.Printf("%+v\n", obj)
fmt.Printf("Data: %s\n", obj.Data)
// use it
var d []interface{}
if err := json.Unmarshal(obj.Data, &d); err != nil {
panic(err)
}
fmt.Printf("%+v\n", d)
for _, v := range d {
// you need a type switch to deterine the type and be able to use most of these
switch real := v.(type) {
case string:
fmt.Println("I'm a string!", real)
case float64:
fmt.Println("I'm a number!", real)
default:
fmt.Printf("Unaccounted for: %+v\n", v)
}
}
}
Your question is:
convert bytes array to struct with a field of type []byte
But you do not have a bytearray but a string array. Your question is not the same as your example. So let answer your question, there are more solutions possible depending in how far you want to diverge from your original requirements.
One string can be converted to one byte-slice, two strings need first to be transformed to one string. So that is problem one. The second problem are the square-brackets in your json-string
This works fine, it implicitly converts the string in the json-string to a byte-slice:
byt := []byte(`{"id":"someID","data":"str1str2"}`)
var obj Obj
if err := json.Unmarshal(byt, &obj); err != nil {
panic(err)
}
fmt.Println(obj)
What cast / assertion need I do in Go in order to pass to a function expecting a generic function like func(interface{}) interface{}, a more specific function like func(int) int instead?
For example, in code like this, fooA can be passed to MakeExclamer, but not fooB:
func MakeExclamer(foo func (interface{}) interface{}, n int) func () {
return func() {
fmt.Printf("%v!!!", foo(n))
}
}
func fooA(x interface{}) interface{} {
return x.(int)*2
}
func fooB(x int) int {
return x * 10
}
func main() {
exclamerA := MakeExclamer(fooA, 12)
exclamerA()
exclamerB := MakeExclamer(fooB, 66)
// >> cannot use fooB (type func(int) int) as type func(interface {}) interface {} in argument to MakeExclamer
exclamerB()
}
(Go Playground link: https://play.golang.org/p/xGzfco0IAG)
I'm not interested much in alternative code structure patterns, since this is how I want it to work: a specific function should be passed to a general function transformer (accepting function of type Any -> Any) that will return another general function (Any -> Any). This may not be idiomatic in Go, but it is the pattern that I want my code to follow.
To use type assertions, every possible type must be enumerated in MakeExclamer:
func MakeExclamer(fn interface{}, arg interface{}) func() {
switch fn := fn.(type) {
case func(int) int:
return func() {
fmt.Printf("%v!!!\n", fn(arg.(int)))
}
case func(interface{}) interface{}:
return func() {
fmt.Printf("%v!!!\n", fn(arg))
}
default:
panic("not supported")
}
}
To accept a function of any type, the fn argument is declared as type interface{}. The code uses a type switch to handle the different function types.
playground example
Reflection can be used to write a more general function.
func MakeExclamer(fn interface{}, arg interface{}) func() {
fnr := reflect.ValueOf(fn)
argr := reflect.ValueOf(arg)
return func() {
resultr := fnr.Call([]reflect.Value{argr})
fmt.Printf("%v!!!\n", resultr[0].Interface())
}
}
playground example
First things first : When it comes to typing in Go, everything is theoretically possible. That's because even though the compiler does a lot of checks at compile-time, it is possible to change the runtime... at runtime. So-called runtime hacks, where you dynamically manipulate runtime structs that you're NOT supposed to handle.
Now, you have an interesting question, whose answer doesn't include the need to use the 'unsafe' package. However, the way I found of generalizing a function involves heavy reflection.
How to call a function (via reflection) ?
The documentation for the reflect package can be found here.
So, like all elements in Golang, functions have a Type. Without going through all fields, functions do take an array of arguments and produce an array of results. It is possible to investigate the Type of arguments and results through the In(int) and Out(int) method.
func investigate(fn interface{}) {
fnType := reflect.TypeOf(fn)
for idx := 0; idx < fnType.NumIn(); idx ++ {
fmt.Printf("Input arg %d has type %v\n", idx, fnType.In(idx))
}
for idx := 0; idx < fnType.NumOut(); idx ++ {
fmt.Printf("Output arg %d has type %v\n", idx, fnType.Out(idx))
}
}
We won't use this code. However, two important things are to be noted at this point :
The generic type under which a function can be passed around without caring about its type is interface{}. Something like "func(interface{}) interface{}" is not a generalization of a function, it is already a concrete type. Hence, "func(interface{}) interface{}" is not a generalization of "func(int) int", those are two different function types entirely. This is why you can't use type assertions/cast to convert from one function type to another.
A function can be represented as something that takes an input array and produces and output array.
Now, in order to call a function, you have to get not its Type, but its Value. Once you get its value, you can call it using an array of arguments, which must all be Values.
The prototype is:
func (v Value) Call(in []Value) []Value
Using this method, it is possible to call any function.
The code
So, the only thing you need is to convert whichever arguments array you have to an array of Values, then you will be able to call your function.
Here is your code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"reflect"
)
func MakeExclamer(foo interface{}, n int) func() {
exclamer := generalize(foo, n)
return func() {
fmt.Printf("%v!!!\n", exclamer())
}
}
func fooA(x interface{}) interface{} {
return x.(int) * 2
}
func fooB(x int) int {
return x * 10
}
func generalize(implem interface{}, args ...interface{}) func() interface{} {
valIn := make([]reflect.Value, len(args), len(args))
fnVal := reflect.ValueOf(implem)
for idx, elt := range args {
valIn[idx] = reflect.ValueOf(elt)
}
ret := func() interface{} {
res := fnVal.Call(valIn)
// We assume the function produces exactly one result
return res[0].Interface()
}
return ret
}
func main() {
exclamerA := MakeExclamer(fooA, 12)
exclamerA()
exclamerB := MakeExclamer(fooB, 66)
exclamerB()
}
Playground
The important bit is the generalize function which makes the translation between your arguments and an array of Values, then returns a new function whith all parameters already filled.
Do not hesitate if you need any precision !
package main
import "fmt"
import "encoding/json"
type Track struct {
XmlRequest string `json:"xmlRequest"`
}
func main() {
message := new(Track)
message.XmlRequest = "<car><mirror>XML</mirror></car>"
fmt.Println("Before Marshal", message)
messageJSON, _ := json.Marshal(message)
fmt.Println("After marshal", string(messageJSON))
}
Is it possible to make json.Marshal not escape < and >? I currently get:
{"xmlRequest":"\u003ccar\u003e\u003cmirror\u003eXML\u003c/mirror\u003e\u003c/car\u003e"}
but I am looking for something like this:
{"xmlRequest":"<car><mirror>XML</mirror></car>"}
As of Go 1.7, you still cannot do this with json.Marshal(). The source code for json.Marshal shows:
> err := e.marshal(v, encOpts{escapeHTML: true})
The reason json.Marshal always does this is:
String values encode as JSON strings coerced to valid UTF-8,
replacing invalid bytes with the Unicode replacement rune.
The angle brackets "<" and ">" are escaped to "\u003c" and "\u003e"
to keep some browsers from misinterpreting JSON output as HTML.
Ampersand "&" is also escaped to "\u0026" for the same reason.
This means you cannot even do it by writing a custom func (t *Track) MarshalJSON(), you have to use something that does not satisfy the json.Marshaler interface.
So, the workaround, is to write your own function:
func (t *Track) JSON() ([]byte, error) {
buffer := &bytes.Buffer{}
encoder := json.NewEncoder(buffer)
encoder.SetEscapeHTML(false)
err := encoder.Encode(t)
return buffer.Bytes(), err
}
https://play.golang.org/p/FAH-XS-QMC
If you want a generic solution for any struct, you could do:
func JSONMarshal(t interface{}) ([]byte, error) {
buffer := &bytes.Buffer{}
encoder := json.NewEncoder(buffer)
encoder.SetEscapeHTML(false)
err := encoder.Encode(t)
return buffer.Bytes(), err
}
https://play.golang.org/p/bdqv3TUGr3
In Go1.7 the have added a new option to fix this:
encoding/json:
add Encoder.DisableHTMLEscaping This provides a way to disable the escaping of <, >, and & in JSON strings.
The relevant function is
func (*Encoder) SetEscapeHTML
That should be applied to a Encoder.
enc := json.NewEncoder(os.Stdout)
enc.SetEscapeHTML(false)
Simple example: https://play.golang.org/p/SJM3KLkYW-
This doesn't answer the question directly but it could be an answer if you're looking for a way how to deal with json.Marshal escaping < and >...
Another way to solve the problem is to replace those escaped characters in json.RawMessage into just valid UTF-8 characters, after the json.Marshal() call.
It will work as well for any letters other than < and >. (I used to do this to make non-English letters to be human readable in JSON :D)
func _UnescapeUnicodeCharactersInJSON(_jsonRaw json.RawMessage) (json.RawMessage, error) {
str, err := strconv.Unquote(strings.Replace(strconv.Quote(string(_jsonRaw)), `\\u`, `\u`, -1))
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
return []byte(str), nil
}
func main() {
// Both are valid JSON.
var jsonRawEscaped json.RawMessage // json raw with escaped unicode chars
var jsonRawUnescaped json.RawMessage // json raw with unescaped unicode chars
// '\u263a' == '☺'
jsonRawEscaped = []byte(`{"HelloWorld": "\uC548\uB155, \uC138\uC0C1(\u4E16\u4E0A). \u263a"}`) // "\\u263a"
jsonRawUnescaped, _ = _UnescapeUnicodeCharactersInJSON(jsonRawEscaped) // "☺"
fmt.Println(string(jsonRawEscaped)) // {"HelloWorld": "\uC548\uB155, \uC138\uC0C1(\u4E16\u4E0A). \u263a"}
fmt.Println(string(jsonRawUnescaped)) // {"HelloWorld": "안녕, 세상(世上). ☺"}
}
https://play.golang.org/p/pUsrzrrcDG-
I hope this helps someone.
Here's my workaround:
// Marshal is a UTF-8 friendly marshaler. Go's json.Marshal is not UTF-8
// friendly because it replaces the valid UTF-8 and JSON characters "&". "<",
// ">" with the "slash u" unicode escaped forms (e.g. \u0026). It preemptively
// escapes for HTML friendliness. Where text may include any of these
// characters, json.Marshal should not be used. Playground of Go breaking a
// title: https://play.golang.org/p/o2hiX0c62oN
func Marshal(i interface{}) ([]byte, error) {
buffer := &bytes.Buffer{}
encoder := json.NewEncoder(buffer)
encoder.SetEscapeHTML(false)
err := encoder.Encode(i)
return bytes.TrimRight(buffer.Bytes(), "\n"), err
}
No, you can't.
A third-party json package might be the choice rather than the std json lib.
More detail：https://github.com/golang/go/issues/8592
I had a requirement to store xml inside json :puke:
At first I was having significant difficulty unmarshalling that xml after passing it via json, but my issue was actually due to trying to unmarshall the xml string as a json.RawMessage. I actually needed to unmarshall it as a string and then coerce it into []byte for the xml.Unmarshal.
type xmlInJson struct {
Data string `json:"data"`
}
var response xmlInJson
err := json.Unmarshall(xmlJsonData, &response)
var xmlData someOtherStructThatMatchesTheXmlFormat
err = xml.Unmarshall([]byte(response.Data), &xmlData)
Custom function is not kind of the best solution.
How about another library to solve this.
I use gabs
import
go get "github.com/Jeffail/gabs"
use
message := new(Track)
resultJson,_:=gabs.Consume(message)
fmt.Println(string(resultJson.EncodeJSON()))
I solve that problem like this.
How can I convert func add (a, b int) int to func(...interface{}) interace{} type ?
Any ideas about implementing generic functions using the reflect package ?
As JimB said, you can't cast in Go and you cannot convert functions just like that but by using closures, you can rapidly wrap your function:
func add(a, b int) int {
return a + b;
}
wrap := func(args ...interface{}) interface{} {
return interface{} (add(args[0].(int), args[1].(int)))
}
Note that wrap will panic if you give it arguments that are not of type int. If you want to avoid that you can slightly modify wrap:
wrap := func(args ...interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
a, k := args[0].(int)
b, l := args[1].(int)
if !k || !l {
return nil, errors.New("Arguments must be of type int")
}
return add(a,b), nil
}
If you'd like to do different things with wrap, depending on it's arguments types you can do so by using a type switch:
func addInts(a, b int) int {
return a + b;
}
func addFloat64s(a, b float64) float64 {
return a + b;
}
wrap := func(args ...interface{}) interface{} {
switch args[0].(type) {
case int: return interface{}(addInts(args[0].(int), args[1].(int)))
case float64: return interface{}(addFloat64s(args[0].(float64), args[1].(float64)))
}
}
Note that this last version of wrap makes the assumption that all given parameters will have the same type and at least 2 arguments are given.
There is no "casting" is go (well, using the "unsafe" package kind of is like casting).
You cannot convert function types like this, since they have different layouts in memory. Generic-like functions can be made through the reflect package, though with significant overhead. See http://golang.org/pkg/reflect/#example_MakeFunc for an example.
For most use cases of generic functions, you're probably better off accepting an interface, and using type assertions or switches (http://golang.org/ref/spec#Type_switches), rather than the reflection library.