I have a custom schema, stored in a json file. I want to parse that schema. Unfortunately, that schema is an enterprise product, so I cannot find a way to parse it. Any approach how to parse a custom schema, I am quite stuck at this point.
One of the example of such schema is following:
{
typeid:org.name:prop1.0.0,
properties : {
typevalue:Float64,
length:4,
typeid:element,
description:"List to store elements"
}
}
One thing I was able to figure out that the typeid is analogous to $id in json-schema. So I think I can parse that. But I am unsure about the others.
Related
I am using Audit.Net library to log EntityFramework actions into a database (currently everything into one AuditEventLogs table, where the JsonData column stores the data in the following Json format:
{
"EventType":"MyDbContext:test_database",
"StartDate":"2021-06-24T12:11:59.4578873Z",
"EndDate":"2021-06-24T12:11:59.4862278Z",
"Duration":28,
"EntityFrameworkEvent":{
"Database":"test_database",
"Entries":[
{
"Table":"Offices",
"Name":"Office",
"Action":"Update",
"PrimaryKey":{
"Id":"40b5egc7-46ca-429b-86cb-3b0781d360c8"
},
"Changes":[
{
"ColumnName":"Address",
"OriginalValue":"test_address",
"NewValue":"test_address"
},
{
"ColumnName":"Contact",
"OriginalValue":"test_contact",
"NewValue":"test_contact"
},
{
"ColumnName":"Email",
"OriginalValue":"test_email",
"NewValue":"test_email2"
},
{
"ColumnName":"Name",
"OriginalValue":"test_name",
"NewValue":"test_name"
},
{
"ColumnName":"OfficeSector",
"OriginalValue":1,
"NewValue":1
},
{
"ColumnName":"PhoneNumber",
"OriginalValue":"test_phoneNumber",
"NewValue":"test_phoneNumber"
}
],
"ColumnValues":{
"Id":"40b5egc7-46ca-429b-86cb-3b0781d360c8",
"Address":"test_address",
"Contact":"test_contact",
"Email":"test_email2",
"Name":"test_name",
"OfficeSector":1,
"PhoneNumber":"test_phoneNumber"
},
"Valid":true
}
],
"Result":1,
"Success":true
}
}
Me and my team has a main aspect to achieve:
Being able to create a search page where administrators are able to tell
who changed
what did they change
when did the change happen
They can give a time period, to reduce the number of audit records, and the interesting part comes here:
There should be an input text field which should let them search in the values of the "ColumnValues" section.
The problems I encountered:
Even if I map the Json structure into relational rows, I am unable to search in every column, with keeping the genericity.
If I don't map, I could search in the Json string with LIKE mssql function but on the order of a few 100,000 records it takes an eternity for the query to finish so it is probably not the way.
Keeping the genericity would be important, so we don't need to modify the audit search page every time when we create or modify a new entity.
I only know MSSQL, but is it possible that storing the audit logs in a document oriented database like cosmosDB (or anything else, it was just an example) would solve my problem? Or can I reach the desired behaviour using relational database like MSSQL?
Looks like you're asking for an opinion, in that case I would strongly recommend a document oriented DB.
CosmosDB could be a great option since it supports SQL queries.
There is an extension to log to CosmosDB from Audit.NET: Audit.AzureCosmos
A sample query:
SELECT c.EventType, e.Table, e.Action, ch.ColumnName, ch.OriginalValue, ch.NewValue
FROM c
JOIN e IN c.EntityFrameworkEvent.Entries
JOIN ch IN e.Changes
WHERE ch.ColumnName = "Address" AND ch.OriginalValue = "test_address"
Here is a nice post with lot of examples of complex SQL queries on CosmosDB
I am looking to use Swagger to document our apis, but I am not sure how with my current use case.
Basically there is a ui that creates a schema and then sends it downstream. I am trying to document the input, but the schema can change based on different values of one of the key.Say the "type" is x, then the schema is:
{
"type":"x",
"info":{
"key_x":""
}
}
And if the "type" is z, then the schema is:
{
"type":"z",
"info":{
"key_z":""
}
}
So is there a way to do this? I was looking at maps, but couldn't see a way to route different schemas based on value.
i'm a kind of newbie using Apache Solr, and i'm indexing a document witch has list of complex objectslike this:
{
PropA: AnyValue,
PropB: [{p1:'v1', p2:'v2'}, {p1:'v3', p2:'v4'}],
PropC: [{p1:'v1', p2:'v2'}, {p1:'v3', p2:'v4'}]
}
When i send it to solr it will get tha same data but on a different format:
{
PropA: AnyValue,
PropB.p1: ['v1','v3']
PropB.p2: ['v2','v4']
PropC.p1: ['v1','v3']
PropC.p2: ['v2','v4']
}
This format is causing me problems on deserializing, is it possible or what can i do to to get Solr to return the object on the original format?
Do i have to specify something special at the schema level to support Subdocuments? i'm kinda lost on this.
Any ideas?
To get well formatted document from SOLR you can use carrot framework.
It easy to implement and you can generate XML or JSON format as par your custom requirement using XSLT.
Trying to generate JSON schema (http://jsonschema.net) from the syncthing (https://docs.syncthing.net/rest/system-connections-get.html) JSON below.
The problem is that the connection objects start with their ID (e.g.
YZJBJFX-RDB...) which is interpreted as a type.
Is it the JSON from synching that isn't standard or is it the issue with the schema generator?
Do you have any suggestions how to get around this if schema generation is a requirement (I.e. no typing schemas manually).
{
"total":{
"paused":false,
"clientVersion":"",
"at":"2015-11-07T17:29:47.691637262+01:00",
"connected":false,
"inBytesTotal":1479,
"type":"",
"outBytesTotal":1318,
"address":""
},
"connections":{
"YZJBJFX-RDBL7WY-6ZGKJ2D-4MJB4E7-ZATSDUY-LD6Y3L3-MLFUYWE-AEMXJAC":{
"connected":true,
"inBytesTotal":556,
"paused":false,
"at":"2015-11-07T17:29:47.691548971+01:00",
"clientVersion":"v0.12.1",
"address":"127.0.0.1:22002",
"type":"TCP (Client)",
"outBytesTotal":550
},
"DOVII4U-SQEEESM-VZ2CVTC-CJM4YN5-QNV7DCU-5U3ASRL-YVFG6TH-W5DV5AA":{
"outBytesTotal":0,
"type":"",
"address":"",
"at":"0001-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"clientVersion":"",
"paused":false,
"inBytesTotal":0,
"connected":false
},
"UYGDMA4-TPHOFO5-2VQYDCC-7CWX7XW-INZINQT-LE4B42N-4JUZTSM-IWCSXA4":{
"address":"",
"type":"",
"outBytesTotal":0,
"connected":false,
"inBytesTotal":0,
"paused":false,
"at":"0001-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"clientVersion":""
}
}
}
Any input is appreciated.
Is it the JSON from synching that isn't standard or is it the issue
with the schema generator?
There is nothing non-standard about this JSON. Neither is there any issue with the schema generation.
Unfortunately, defining a schema for what is effectively dynamic content is difficult. This will always be the case because the job of schemas is to describe static data structures.
That said, it may be possible to do this using the patternProperties field in JSON schema. This post is effectively asking the same question as yours.
I'm designing a new API for my project, and I want to return objects that have nested children as json. For that purpose i've decided to use RABL.
I want the client side to be able to understand whether the object is valid, and if not which fields are missing in order to save it correctly.
The design I thought of should include some fields as optional, under an optional hash, and the rest are required. The required fields should appear right under the root of the json.
So the output I try to describe should look something like this:
{
"name": "John",
"last_name": "Doe",
"optional": {
"address": "Beverly Hills 90210",
"phones":[{"number":"123456","name":"work"}, {"number":"654321","name":"mobile"}]
}
}
The above output example describes the required fields name and last name, and the not required address and phones (which is associated in a belongs_to-has_many relationship to the object). name, last_name and address are User's DB fields.
Playing with RABL I didn't manage so far to create this kind of structure.
Any suggestions? I'm looking for a DRY way to implement this for all my models.
RABL is really good in creating JSON structures on the fly, so I don't see why you couldn't achieve your goal. Did you try testing if a field is set to null-able in the schema, and thus presenting it as optional? It seems a good approach for me. For the nested children, just do the same, but extend the template for the children.
For example, in your father/show.rabl display a custom node :optional with all the properties that can be null.
Then, create a child/show.rabl with the same logic. Finally, go back to father/show.rabl and add a child node, extending the child/show.rabl template. This way you could achieve unlimited levels of "optionals".
Hope it helped you.
In this case I'd use the free form option.
From https://github.com/nesquena/rabl
There can also be odd cases where the root-level of the response
doesn't map directly to any object.
In those cases, object can be assigned to 'false'
and nodes can be constructed free-form.
object false
node(:some_count) { |m| #user.posts.count }
child(#user) { attribute :name }