JToken.ReadFrom vs JToken.Load? - json.net

The Json.net documentation between these 2 methods are exactly the same.
JToken.ReadFrom
JToken.Load
Both are static methods. Both have the same signatures.
Is there a preferred method? Does one depend on the next?

They are functionally identical.
In the abstract JToken class, Load ultimately calls ReadFrom, which figures out which type of JToken is being read and then delegates to the Load methods of the concrete subclasses as appropriate. JArray, JObject, JProperty and JConstrutor all have their own versions of Load which hide JToken.Load and create and return that object type (i.e. JObject.Load creates a JObject, etc.) Note that JValue does not have a Load method of its own, so that is handled in JToken.ReadFrom.
You can see for yourself in the source code:
public static JToken Load(JsonReader reader)
{
return Load(reader, null);
}
public static JToken Load(JsonReader reader, JsonLoadSettings? settings)
{
return ReadFrom(reader, settings);
}
public static JToken ReadFrom(JsonReader reader)
{
return ReadFrom(reader, null);
}
public static JToken ReadFrom(JsonReader reader, JsonLoadSettings? settings)
{
ValidationUtils.ArgumentNotNull(reader, nameof(reader));
...
switch (reader.TokenType)
{
case JsonToken.StartObject:
return JObject.Load(reader, settings);
case JsonToken.StartArray:
return JArray.Load(reader, settings);
case JsonToken.StartConstructor:
return JConstructor.Load(reader, settings);
case JsonToken.PropertyName:
return JProperty.Load(reader, settings);
case JsonToken.String:
case JsonToken.Integer:
case JsonToken.Float:
case JsonToken.Date:
case JsonToken.Boolean:
case JsonToken.Bytes:
JValue v = new JValue(reader.Value);
v.SetLineInfo(lineInfo, settings);
return v;
case JsonToken.Comment:
v = JValue.CreateComment(reader.Value!.ToString());
v.SetLineInfo(lineInfo, settings);
return v;
case JsonToken.Null:
v = JValue.CreateNull();
v.SetLineInfo(lineInfo, settings);
return v;
case JsonToken.Undefined:
v = JValue.CreateUndefined();
v.SetLineInfo(lineInfo, settings);
return v;
default:
throw JsonReaderException.Create(reader, "Error reading JToken from JsonReader. Unexpected token: {0}".FormatWith(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, reader.TokenType));
}
}

Related

WebFlux returning http.okay vice http.notFound

New to WebFlux, reactive, and handlers. I've got things "working", but am not understanding why following code is returning "okay" with empty body, vice "not found".
Clarification: The issue-of-concern is in the final return statement of DemoPOJOHandler.getById(). The "short-circuit" code works as expected (i.e., returns "Bad Request" status), but the "switchIfEmpty" path of the final return statement does not appear to get exercised if a DemoPOJORepo.getById(int) returns Mono.empty().
(Note: I've hacked up a list-based "repo" to avoid dealing with database while figuring out handlers and http return types.)
Router implementation ("/v1" is a set of annotation based RESTful endpoints)...
#Configuration
public class DemoPOJORouter {
#Bean
public RouterFunction<ServerResponse> route(DemoPOJOHandler requestHandler) {
return nest(path("/v2"),
nest(accept(APPLICATION_JSON),
RouterFunctions.route(RequestPredicates.GET("/DemoPOJO"), requestHandler::getAll)
.andRoute(RequestPredicates.GET("/DemoPOJO/{id}"), requestHandler::getById)
.andRoute(RequestPredicates.POST("/DemoPOJO"), requestHandler::add)));
}
}
Handler implementation has been "stripped down" to only the code in question. I have a feeling that much of the style is "still imperative", but I've attempted to put the reactive stuff where it "makes the most sense".
If I supply a bad value on the URI (i.e., "foo"), then I get the http "bad request" returned. But, never seem to get the "not found" that should be generated by "switchIfEmpty" if a validly formatted int value is supplied, but it does not map to an entry in the repo.
#Component
public class DemoPOJOHandler {
public static final String PATH_VAR_ID = "id";
private DemoPOJORepo repo = null;
public Mono<ServerResponse> getById(ServerRequest request) {
Mono<DemoPOJO> monoDemoPOJO = null;
Map<String, String> pathVariables = request.pathVariables();
int id = -1;
checkRepoRef(); // part of the list hack
// short-circuit if request doesn't contain id (should never happen)
if ((pathVariables == null)
|| (!pathVariables.containsKey(PATH_VAR_ID))) {
return ServerResponse.badRequest().build();
}
// short-circuit if bad id value
try {
id = Integer.parseInt(pathVariables.get(PATH_VAR_ID));
} catch(NumberFormatException e) {
return ServerResponse.badRequest().build();
}
// get entity by keyValue
monoDemoPOJO = repo.getById(id);
return monoDemoPOJO
.flatMap(demoPOJO -> ServerResponse.ok()
.contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
.syncBody(demoPOJO)
.switchIfEmpty(ServerResponse.notFound().build()));
}
}
Hack of a list-based repo to avoid dealing with data/APIs while working on handlers and http return types.
// local hack to avoid a database for testing
public class DemoPOJORepo {
private static DemoPOJORepo fpRepo = null;
private static int NUM_ROWS = 100;
private Map<Integer, DemoPOJO> fooPOJOMap;
private DemoPOJORepo() {
initMap();
}
public static DemoPOJORepo getInstance() {
if (fpRepo == null) {
fpRepo = new DemoPOJORepo();
}
return fpRepo;
}
public Mono<DemoPOJO> getById(int id) {
Mono<DemoPOJO> monoDP;
if (fooPOJOMap.containsKey(id)) {
monoDP = Mono.just(fooPOJOMap.get(id));
} else {
monoDP = Mono.empty();
}
return monoDP;
}
private Mono<Void> initMap() {
fooPOJOMap = new TreeMap<Integer, DemoPOJO>();
int offset = -1;
for(int ndx=0; ndx<NUM_ROWS; ndx++) {
offset = ndx + 1;
fooPOJOMap.put(offset, new DemoPOJO(offset, "foo_" + offset, offset+100));
}
return Mono.empty();
}
}
Your brackets are in the wrong place causing the swithIfEmpy to apply to the ServerResponse.ok() publisher not the monoDemoPOJO, replace the return with this and it should work:
return monoDemoPOJO
.flatMap(demoPOJO -> ServerResponse.ok().contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON).syncBody(demoPOJO))
.switchIfEmpty(ServerResponse.notFound().build());
As I can see the code is right. The response code is Bad request because you are trying to convert "foo" to Integer, and when it throws an exception you are returning a Bad request response, so I think it works perfectly fine.
If you use an Integer id that is not present in your database then the answer must be a not found response

Converting Map to Java Bean, some properties cannot be set rightly

// I use this simple program:
public static Object convertToBean(Class type, Map map) {
BeanInfo beanInfo;
Object obj = null;
try {
beanInfo = Introspector.getBeanInfo(type);
obj = type.newInstance();
// When I debugging to here, I found that some properties is different from the variable the Object own. PropertyDescriptor changes charactor case when the variable is not in "String" type.
PropertyDescriptor[] propertyDescriptors = beanInfo.getPropertyDescriptors();
for (PropertyDescriptor descriptor : propertyDescriptors) {
String propertyName = descriptor.getName();
if (map.containsKey(propertyName)) {
Object value = map.get(propertyName);
Object[] args = new Object[1];
args[0] = value;
descriptor.getWriteMethod().invoke(obj, args);
}
}
} catch (Exception ignored) {
}
return obj;
}
//Using BeanMap is the same question.
Finally I found the root cause.
The problem solved by changing “A01” to "a01".
The variable name must be strict camel rule. First character must be lower case, except first two characters are all in upper case, like "AD".
Because the setter and getter methods will generate in same pattern. so It'll be difficult to recognize the real name of one variable.

Constraints on parameters in api interface

I've declared an API call in an interface and was wondering if it is possible to put constraints on some of the parameters. The API I'm accessing has these constraints as well and would like to enforce them in my program.
#GET("/recipes/search")
Call<RecipeResponse> getRecipes(
#Query("cuisine") String cuisine,
#Query("diet") String diet,
#Query("excludeIngredients") String excludeIngredients,
#Query("intolerances") String intolerances,
#Query("number") Integer number,
#Query("offset") Integer offset,
#Query("query") String query,
#Query("type") String type
);
How can I do this?
I know that it is possible to do this with POST request, and passing along an object via the RequestBody through the #Body annotation. Can I do this with a GET request too, where information is passed via the query string?
Thanks!
I think I ended up finding a solution. I've made a class SearchRecipeRequest in which I declare all possible parameters as class variables. In the setters I do the data validation such as checking for null on parameters that are required, or min/max value constraints on integers as specified by the endpoint. I then made a SearchRecipeRequestBuilder class to build such an object like so to make it easier to deal with all those possible parameters:
public class SearchRecipeRequestBuilder {
private String _cuisine = null,
_diet = null,
_excludeIngredients = null,
_intolerances = null,
_query = null,
_type = null;
private Integer _number = null,
_offset = null;
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder() {}
public SearchRecipeRequest buildRequest() {
return new SearchRecipeRequest(_cuisine, _diet, _excludeIngredients, _intolerances, _number, _offset, _query, _type);
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder cuisine(String cuisine) {
_cuisine = cuisine;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder diet(String diet) {
_diet = diet;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder excludeIngredients(String excludeIngredients) {
_excludeIngredients = excludeIngredients;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder intolerances(String intolerances) {
_intolerances = intolerances;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder query(String query) {
_query = query;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder type(String type) {
_type = type;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder number(Integer number) {
_number = number;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder offset(Integer offset) {
_offset = offset;
return this;
}
}
Which allows me to build the request like so:
SearchRecipeRequest request = new SearchRecipeRequestBuilder()
.query("burger")
.buildRequest();
I then pass along that object to a different function that knows how to use the request object to pass it along to the API.
That's how I'm doing it right now, if someone has a better way I'd love to hear it. :)
I got the idea to use the Builder pattern from a different StackOverflow question: Managing constructors with many parameters in Java.

How do I do a custom modelbinder when binding from body?

I've been trying to experiment with model binding to make our API easier to use. When using the API I can't get the model binding to bind when the data is in the body, only when it is part of the query.
The code I have is:
public class FunkyModelBinder : IModelBinder
{
public bool BindModel(HttpActionContext actionContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext)
{
var model = (Funky) bindingContext.Model ?? new Funky();
var hasPrefix = bindingContext.ValueProvider
.ContainsPrefix(bindingContext.ModelName);
var searchPrefix = (hasPrefix) ? bindingContext.ModelName + "." : "";
model.Funk = GetValue(bindingContext, searchPrefix, "Funk");
bindingContext.Model = model;
return true;
}
private string GetValue(ModelBindingContext context, string prefix, string key)
{
var result = context.ValueProvider.GetValue(prefix + key);
return result == null ? null : result.AttemptedValue;
}
}
When looking at the ValueProvider property on the bindingContext I only see QueryStringValueProvider and RouteDataValueProvider which I think means that if the data is in the body I won't get it. How should I do this? I would like to support posting data as either json or form-encoded.
I am looking into this as well.
WebApis Model Binder comes with two built in ValueProviders.
QueryStringValueProviderFactory & RouteDataValueProviderFactory
Which are searched when you call
context.ValueProvider.GetValue
This question has some code on how to bind data from the body.
how to pass the result model object out of System.Web.Http.ModelBinding.IModelBinder. BindModel?
You could create a custom ValueProvider to do this as well, probably a better idea - which will be searched for the value matching the key. The above link just does this within the model binder, which limits the ModelBinder to looking only in the body.
public class FormBodyValueProvider : IValueProvider
{
private string body;
public FormBodyValueProvider ( HttpActionContext actionContext )
{
if ( actionContext == null ) {
throw new ArgumentNullException( "actionContext" );
}
//List out all Form Body Values
body = actionContext.Request.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result;
}
// Implement Interface and use code to read the body
// and find your Value matching your Key
}

How can I check if a class belongs to Java JDK

I use an external library which return some List<?>.
I need to check if each object of this list is an Object of the JDK (String, int, Integer...).
Is this a proper solution?
List<?> list = externalLibrary.search(...);
for(clazz : list) {
if (clazz.getPackage().getName().startsWith("java.lang"))
// do something different
}
Is there a better one?
Depending on your definition of "object of the JDK" -- which could get quite fuzzy around the edges -- no, this isn't going to do it. The java.lang package is only a tiny part of all the classes included in the JDK.
You might check whether each object was loaded by the same ClassLoader that loaded java.lang.String -- i.e.,
if (theObject.getClass().getClassLoader() == "".getClass().getClassLoader()) ...
In general, a different ClassLoader will be used for system classes vs. application classes.
It is probably OK, just you have to check the following packages:
java
javax
com.sun
sun
probably others...
We use the below class to check if the classes belongs to JDK
public class JDKClass {
private static Set<String> CS = new HashSet<String>();
static {
try {
File file = new File(System.getProperty("java.home"),
"lib/classlist");
BufferedReader r = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(file));
String l;
while (true) {
l = r.readLine();
if (l == null) {
break;
} else {
CS.add(l.replace('/', '.'));
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
public static boolean contains(String o) {
return CS.contains(o) || o.startsWith("java") || o.startsWith("com.sun")
|| o.startsWith("sun") || o.startsWith("oracle")
|| o.startsWith("org.xml") || o.startsWith("com.oracle");
}
private JDKClass() {
}
}
You can use ClassLoader.getSystemResources and then check from what jar is the class loaded (f.g. if it comes from rt.jar).
You will get URL's such as:
jar:file:/C:/Users/user/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-log4j12/1.6.1/slf4j-log4j12-1.6.1.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class
Example code taken from SLF4j:
private static String STATIC_LOGGER_BINDER_PATH =
"org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class";
private static void singleImplementationSanityCheck() {
try {
ClassLoader loggerFactoryClassLoader = LoggerFactory.class
.getClassLoader();
Enumeration paths;
if (loggerFactoryClassLoader == null) {
paths = ClassLoader.getSystemResources(STATIC_LOGGER_BINDER_PATH);
} else {
paths = loggerFactoryClassLoader
.getResources(STATIC_LOGGER_BINDER_PATH);
}
List implementationList = new ArrayList();
while (paths.hasMoreElements()) {
URL path = (URL) paths.nextElement();
implementationList.add(path);
}
....
}
Personally I like class loader base answer. But it will return true also on StringBuilder. If you want to more narrow definition that is only "built-in" types, you can try to evaluate whether this is primitive type (such as int) or wrapper type (such as Integer) or String. You can write something like this:
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.TreeMap;
public class Utils {
private static Map<String, Class<?>> SUBST_MAP = new TreeMap<String, Class<?>>();
private static Map<String, Class<?>> SIMPLE_MAP = new TreeMap<String, Class<?>>();
static {
SUBST_MAP.put(Byte.class.getName(), Byte.TYPE);
SUBST_MAP.put(Short.class.getName(), Short.TYPE);
SUBST_MAP.put(Integer.class.getName(), Integer.TYPE);
SUBST_MAP.put(Long.class.getName(), Long.TYPE);
SUBST_MAP.put(Float.class.getName(), Float.TYPE);
SUBST_MAP.put(Double.class.getName(), Double.TYPE);
SUBST_MAP.put(Boolean.class.getName(), Boolean.TYPE);
SUBST_MAP.put(Character.class.getName(), Character.TYPE);
SIMPLE_MAP.put(String.class.getName(), Boolean.TRUE);
}
/**
* Gets the the class type of the types of the argument.
*
* if substPrimitiveWrapper is true,
* then if there is argument, that represent primitive type wrapper (such as Integer),
* then it will be substituted to primitive type (such as int).
* else no substitution will be done.
*
* #param arg object.
* #param substPrimitiveWrapper - wheteher to do primitive type substitution.
* #retrun class type.
*/
public static Class<?> getClassType(Object arg, boolean substPrimitiveWrapper){
Class<?> classType = null;
String className = null;
Class<?> substClass = null;
if(arg != null ){
//making default classType
classType = arg.getClass();
if(substPrimitiveWrapper){
className = classType.getName();
substClass = (Class<?>)SUBST_MAP.get(className);
if(substClass != null){
classType = substClass;
}
}
}
return classType;
}
/**
* This method consider JDK type any primitive type, wrapper class or String.
*
*
* #param arg object
* #return where arg is JDK type or now.
*/
public static boolean isJDKClass(Object arg){
Class<?> classType = getClassType(arg, true);
boolean isJDKClass = false;
if(classType!=null){
//if(String.class.equals(classType)){
// isJDKClass = true; //this is String, note that String is final
//}
assert classType!=null;
String className = classType.getName();
Boolean isFound = (Boolean)SIMPLE_MAP.get(className);
if(Boolean.TRUE.equals(isFound)){
isJDKClass = true; //this is predefined class
}
boolean isPrimitiveType = classType.isPrimitive();
if(isPrimitiveType){
isJDKClass = true; //this is primitive type or wrapper class
}
}
return isJDKClass;
}
}
You can also optionally add support for such classes like java.math.BigDecimal, java.util.Date, java.sql.Timestamp. Note, however, that they are not final, so I assumed that if somebody extended them even in the trivial way, it will not be considered as JDK class.
I think an easier solution is to thing of the problem this way:
write a method to identify all classes that are defined by you. In most cases, all user defined classes follow a pattern like com.something.something. Then if they do not belong to com.something.something, it is a JDK class

Resources