I just stumbled over this - I registered my Records which include some ImmutableLists.
Basically, like this:
record A {
[BsonId]
string Id {get; init;}
string Name {get; init;}
ImmutableList<string> Properties {get; init;}
};
record B {
[BsonId]
string Id {get; init;}
string Name {get; init;}
ImmutableList<A> Members {get; init;}
}
Now, serializing those to my MongoDB works fine, everything looks like it should. However, the deserialization back in to the Records does not work, from the exception thrown it seems that the Add method does not quite work the way the deserializer expects (well, sure, instead of adding to the list itself it instead returns a new list with the added item).
Now, I found how to write a basic deserializer myself - but the nested A in B makes it a bit painful and it's quite brittle (e.g. if I later add additional nullable fields). What would be the best way to approach this problem?
This improvement raised with MongoDB explains the behavior and a possible solution by creating a custom serializer just for ImmutableList<T>:
public class ImmutableListSerializer<TValue> :
EnumerableInterfaceImplementerSerializerBase<ImmutableList<TValue>, TValue>
{
protected override object CreateAccumulator() =>
ImmutableList.CreateBuilder<TValue>();
protected override ImmutableList<TValue> FinalizeResult(object accumulator) =>
((ImmutableList<TValue>.Builder)accumulator).ToImmutable();
}
You can register this serializer for the required properties either on the properties themselves:
[BsonSerializer(typeof(ImmutableListSerializer<string>))]
public ImmutableList<string> Properties { get; init; }
// ...
[BsonSerializer(typeof(ImmutableListSerializer<A>))]
public ImmutableList<A> Members { get; init; }
Alternatively, you can register it globally when initializing the application:
BsonSerializer.RegisterSerializer(
typeof(ImmutableList<A>),
new ImmutableListSerializer<A>());
BsonSerializer.RegisterSerializer(
typeof(ImmutableList<string>),
new ImmutableListSerializer<string>());
The downside is that you need to do this for each list type you need, but there is hope that the driver will support this sooner or later.
Related
I am adding an API to an existing database so I am stuck with the current MongoDB document schema. The document is flat with no nested objects. I want to deserialize a group of the fields into a child object. I was wondering if there was a way of doing that with the BsonElement attribute? Another approach I came across was using a custom serializer. Would it be possible to write a custom serializer for the child object even though there is no field matching the child object's name? Or would I need to write the custom serializer at using the parent object?
Here is an example of a document:
{
"Name": "Name",
"AddressLine1": "321 street",
"AddressLine2": "apt 1",
}
Here is an example of the C# classes and what I was trying to do:
public class Customer
{
[BsonElement("Name")]
public string CustomerName {get; set;}
public Address Address {get; set;}
}
public class Address
{
[BsonElement("AddressLine1")]
public string AddressLine1 {get; set;}
[BsonElement("AddressLine2")]
public string AddressLine2 {get; set;}
}
There's no way to use attributes to achieve what you are wanting, this because the attributes apply given conditions to a BsonMemberMap which resides in the BsonClassMap.
As you said this however can be achieved by creating a custom serializer.
public class CustomBsonSerializer : IBsonSerializer<MyType>
{
}
BsonSerializer.RegisterSerializer(new CustomBsonSerializer())
However, if you want to write a bespoke serializer it can become a bit brittle.
I'd personally opt for creating 2 sets of models, one to model the current state of your documents in MongoDB and then another model to create the structure that you want to use.
I have a class in C#, that has a number of variables. Let's call it "QuestionItem".
I have a list of this object, which the user modifies, and then sends it via JSON serialization (with Newtonsoft JSON library) to the server.
To do so, I deserialize the objects that are already in the server, as a List<QuestionItem>, then add this new modified object to the list, and then serialize it back to the server.
In order to display this list of QuestionItems to the user, I deserialize the JSON as my object, and display it somewhere.
Now, the problem is - that I want to change this QuestionItem and add some variables to it.
But I can't send this NewQuestionItem to the server, because the items in the server are of type OldQuestionItem.
How do I merge these two types, or convert the old type to the new one, while the users with the old version will still be able to use the app?
You are using an Object Oriented Language, so you might aswell use inheritance if possible.
Assuming your old QuestionItem to be:
[JsonObject(MemberSerialization.OptOut)]
public class QuestionItem
{
[JsonConstructor]
public QuestionItem(int Id, int Variant)
{
this.Id = Id;
this.Variant = Variant;
}
public int Id { get; }
public int Variant { get; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
you can extend it by creating a child class:
[JsonObject(MemberSerialization.OptOut)]
public class NewQuestionItem : QuestionItem
{
private DateTime _firstAccess;
[JsonConstructor]
public NewQuestionItem(int Id, int Variant, DateTime FirstAccess) : base(Id, Variant)
{
this.FirstAccess = FirstAccess;
}
public DateTime FirstAccess { get; }
}
Note that using anything different than the default constructor for a class requires you to use the [JsonConstructor] Attribute on this constructor and every argument of said constructor must be named exactly like the corresponding JSON properties. Otherwise you will get an exception, because there is no default constructor available.
Your WebAPI will now send serialized NewQuestionItems, which can be deserialized to QuestionItems. In fact: By default, JSON.NET as with most Json libraries, will deserialize it to any object if they have at least one property in common. Just make sure that any member of the object you want to serialize/desreialize can actually be serialized.
You can test the example above with the following three lines of code:
var newQuestionItem = new NewQuestionItem(1337, 42, DateTime.Now) {Name = "Hello World!"};
var jsonString = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(newQuestionItem);
var oldQuestionItem = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<QuestionItem>(jsonString);
and simply looking at the property values of the oldQuestionItem in the debugger.
So, this is possible as long as your NewQuestionItem only adds properties to an object and does neither remove nor modify them.
If that is the case, then your objects are different and thus, requiring completely different objects with a different URI in your API, as long as you still need to maintain the old instance on the existing URI.
Which brings us to the general architecture:
The most clean and streamline approach to what you are trying to achieve is to properly version your API.
For the purpose of this link I am assuming an Asp.NET WebApi, since you are handling the JSON in C#/.NET. This allows different controller methods to be called upon different versions and thus, making structural changes the resources your API is providing depending on the time of the implementation. Other API will provide equal or at least similar features or they can be implemented manually.
Depending on the amount and size of the actual objects and potential complexity of the request- and resultsets it might also be worth looking into wrapping requests or responses with additional information. So instead of asking for an object of type T, you ask for an Object of type QueryResult<T> with it being defined along the lines of:
[JsonObject(MemberSerialization.OptOut)]
public class QueryResult<T>
{
[JsonConstructor]
public QueryResult(T Result, ResultState State,
Dictionary<string, string> AdditionalInformation)
{
this.Result = result;
this.State = state;
this.AdditionalInformation = AdditionalInformation;
}
public T Result { get; }
public ResultState State { get; }
public Dictionary<string, string> AdditionalInformation { get; }
}
public enum ResultState : byte
{
0 = Success,
1 = Obsolete,
2 = AuthenticationError,
4 = DatabaseError,
8 = ....
}
which will allow you to ship additional information, such as api version number, api version release, links to different API endpoints, error information without changing the object type, etc.
The alternative to using a wrapper with a custom header is to fully implement the HATEOAS constraint, which is also widely used. Both can, together with proper versioning, save you most of the trouble with API changes.
How about you wrapping your OldQuestionItem as a property of QuestionItem? For example:
public class NewQuestionItem
{
public OldQuestionItem OldItem { get; set; }
public string Property1 {get; set; }
public string Property2 {get; set; }
...
}
This way you can maintain the previous version of the item, yet define new information to be returned.
Koda
You can use something like
public class OldQuestionItem
{
public DateTime UploadTimeStamp {get; set;} //if less then DateTime.Now then it QuestionItem
public string Property1 {get; set; }
public string Property2 {get; set; }
...
public OldQuestionItem(NewQuestionItem newItem)
{
//logic to convert new in old
}
}
public class NewQuestionItem : OldQuestionItem
{
}
and use UploadTimeStamp as marker to understand, what Question is it.
Havin a Response with a complex property, i want to to map to my responseDTO properly. For all basic types it works out flawlessly.
The ResponseDTO looks like this:
public class ResponseDto
{
public string Id {
get;
set;
}
public struct Refs
{
public Genre GenreDto {
get;
set;
}
public Location LocationDto {
get;
set;
}
}
public Refs References {
get;
set;
}
}
Genre and Location are both for now simple classes with simple properties (int/string)
public class GenreDto {
public string Id {
get;
set;
}
public string Name {
get;
set;
}
}
Question:
Is there any way, without changing/replacing the generic unserializer ( and more specific example) (in this example JSON ) to map such complex properties?
One specific difference to the GithubResponse example is, that i cant use a dictionry of one type, since i have different types under references. Thats why i use a struct, but this seems not to work. Maybe only IEnumerable are allowed?
Update
There is a way using lamda expressins to parse the json manually github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.Text/blob/master/tests/ServiceStack.Text.Tests/UseCases/CentroidTests.cs#L136 but i would really like to avoid this, since the ResponseDTO becomes kinda useless this way - since when writing this kind of manual mapping i would no longer us Automapper to map from ResponseDto to DomainModel - i though like this abstraction and "seperation".
Thanks
I used lambda expressions to solve this issue, a more complex example would be
static public Func<JsonObject,Cart> fromJson = cart => new Cart(new CartDto {
Id = cart.Get<string>("id"),
SelectedDeliveryId = cart.Get<string>("selectedDeliveryId"),
SelectedPaymentId = cart.Get<string>("selectedPaymentId"),
Amount = cart.Get<float>("selectedPaymentId"),
AddressBilling = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("address_billing").FirstOrDefault().ConvertTo(AddressDto.fromJson),
AddressDelivery = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("address_delivery").FirstOrDefault().ConvertTo(AddressDto.fromJson),
AvailableShippingTypes = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("delivery").ConvertAll(ShippingTypeDto.fromJson),
AvailablePaypmentTypes = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("payment").ConvertAll(PaymentOptionDto.fromJson),
Tickets = cart.Object("references").ArrayObjects("ticket").ConvertAll(TicketDto.fromJson)
});
So this lamda exprpession is used to parse the JsonObject response of the request and map everything inside, even nested ressources. This works out very well and flexible
Some time ago i stumbled upon a similar problem. Actually ServiceStack works well with complex properties. The problem in my scenario was that i was fetching data from a database and was passing the objects returned from the DB provider directly to ServiceStack. The solution was to either create DTOs out of the models returned by the DB provider or invoke .ToList() on those same models.
I'm just sharing some experience with SS but may be you can specify what's not working for you. Is there an exception thrown or something else.
I am implementing a mongodb cache for this asp.net webapi output cache (I agree redis would be better / faster but for now, I need a mongodb implementation!)
Anyway,
I have a CachedItem class that holds my key / value:
[BsonIgnoreExtraElements]
public class CachedItem
{
[BsonElement("key")]
public string Key { get; set; }
[BsonElement("value")]
public object Value { get; set; }
}
Value is an object, that could be anything, we don't control that.
In one of my tests, I have a very simple poco:
public class UserFixture
{
public UserFixture()
{
Id = Guid.NewGuid();
}
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime DateOfBirth { get; set; }
}
When this is set to the Value it is serialized and persisted.
When I try to retrieve it, it fails to deserialize, as it has automatically grabbed the "Id" property.
An error occurred while deserializing the Id property of class WebAPI.OutputCache.MongoDb.Tests.UserFixture: Cannot deserialize Guid from BsonType ObjectId
Obviously, I can't decorate UserFixture
Is there any way I can tell MongoDB driver to basically serialize CachedItem.Value, as say, a string?
I could use JSON.net to do this before saving, and deserialize it on the way back out, but I was hoping to avoid this.
It's also on GitHub
That link should take you straight to the relevent commit if you'd like to try the failing test.
You can of course tell MongoDB to serialize your class as a string by building your own custom BsonSerializer. I have found it easier to inherit from their BsonStringSerializer. You also need to register that serializer with your specific type. (I suggest using a BsonSerializationProvider for that)
What you do need to think about is how to represent all your possible data as a string so you could deserialize it back to your application (Consider for example that you probably need to save the type information).
I am working on an endpoint in asp.net that serializes and returns some data, using the default serializer.
The consuming applications are transitioning between changing names for properties (in other words, some existing applications are using names like ...Vat; while newer ones are using ...Tax. I therefore need to keep both names in the response for the moment, until these changes are complete.
The return type is IList.
public class Product
{
...
public decimal PriceIncVat { get; set; }
public decimal PriceIncTax { get { return PriceIncVat; } }
public int TaxCode { get; set; }
...
}
However, when I examine the response in fiddler, only the PriceIncVat property exists in the json list of products.
I can't think of any reason why the above wouldn't work. I added TaxCode at the same time as PriceIncTax, and it is returned, so I know the code of the endpoint is up to date.
And on the client side of a newer client project we have:
public class ProductDto
{
...
public decimal PriceIncTax { get; set; }
public string TaxCode { get; set; }
...
}
Very confused here.
The serializer assumes you will need to deserialize the data some time. Hence by default only properties with a getter and a setter are considered.
When using the DataContractJsonSerializer, it's possible to turn on serialization of read-only properties using the SerializeReadOnlyTypes property (despite its rather misleading name).
Side note: Check-out the Json.NET serializer, which gives more options and better control over the (de)serialization process.