i am parsing json and what i get set of dictionary but after parsing it will automatically change it order. i just need same order as same i am getting from json parsing.
NOTE: i want to make one functionality which depends on dictionary order, i don't want to make it manually. so it will not need to make it every-time to do.it will help to change dynamically in future
Example:
From Json:
Section:
{
category:{},
location:{},
vehicle_type:{},
mode_type:{}
}
after convert into NSDicationary:
Section:
{
vehicle_type:{}
category:{},
location:{},
mode_type:{}
}
Thanks
Order of key:value doesn't matter for JSON, as you can directly access value with the help of key string. An dictionary does not support indexing of elements, so you can't.
Dictionaries are not ordered collections. On other hand, arrays are.
Note, if you don't have access over the json format, you got no guarantees about the order of elements, if you don't have hardcoded logic in your app.
Having said that, let's take a deeper look into your case. It happens that you have one main object in your json that is Section. What is more, you have 4 ordered properties of this object that are of specific kind of their own: 0: category; 1: location; 2: vehicle_type; 3: mode_type. So here comes the good part: just change your json to look something like this:
Section:
[
{
title: "category",
value: {}
},
{
title: "location",
value: {}
},
{
title: "vehicle_type",
value: {}
},
{
title: "mode_type",
value: {}
}
]
Having this json, you just go through the Section ordered elements, check the title of the element, and create the corresponding Object. This way you can achieve what you are after.
Related
I am working in Kafka Lenses v2.2.2. I need to filter based on a the value of an object inside an array.
Sample message (redacted for simplicity):
{
"payload": {
"Data": {
"something" : "stuff"
},
"foo": {
"bar": [
{
"id": "8177BE12-F69B-4A51-B12E-976D2AE37487",
"info": "more_data"
},
{
"id": "06A846C5-2138-4107-A5B0-A2FC21B9F32D",
"info": "more_data"
}
]
}
}
In lenses this actually appears as a nested object with a integer properties... 0, 1, etc.
So I've tried this, but it is throwing an error: .0 appears out of place
SELECT *
FROM topic_name
WHERE payload.foo.bar.0.id = "8177BE12-F69B-4A51-B12E-976D2AE37487"
LIMIT 10
I tried wrapping the 0 in double/single quotes as well and that throws a 500 error.
I copied and pasted the UUID from the first message in the topic, so it's definitely there. I also copy and pasted the labels to rule out typos. I am thinking there is some special way to access arrays with nested objects like this, but I'm struggling to find any documentation or videos discussing it.
I can be confident the value is stored in the first array element, but methods that can search all objects would be awesome as well.
The syntax (if you know the array index - as in my initial question) is:
SELECT *
FROM topic_name
WHERE payload.foo.bar[0].id = "8177BE12-F69B-4A51-B12E-976D2AE37487"
LIMIT 10
Though I am still struggling to do this if the array index is unknown and you need to check them all. I'm assuming at this point it's not possible without a series of OR statements in the WHERE clause that checks them all.
I have this json:
{
"$type": "System.Collections.Generic.List<MyType>",
"$values": [
{
"$type": "MyType",
"o": 7.54,
"t": 1619002800000,
"n": 3
},
{
"$type": "MyType",
"o": 7.53,
"t": 1619005140000,
"n": 3
}
]
}
I want to deserialize it back into a List<MyType>. I thought there would be an easy way to do that some thing like this:
var myList = json.FromJson<MyType>();
but that doesn't work.
I have figured out a way to accomplish my goal but it's a bit messy so I was wondering if there's a better way that I'm not aware of. Here's the messy way I came up with:
var myListOfObject = (List<object>)((Dictionary<string, object>)JSON.parse(json))["$values"];
var myTypes = myListOfObject.ConvertAll(x => JSON.stringify(x).FromJson<MyType>());
I'm not necessarily looking for fewer lines of code because 2 isn't anything to complain about. I'm just hoping there is a way that doesn't require all the casting and parsing and rather can accept the json as is and get it back to the type it came from. Maybe there's even a parameter I can set to tell it to validate types during the deserialization since the full type names are in the json.
You should use the same serializer you used to serialize the payload to deserialize it. ServiceStack.Text uses __type to embed its type information, in a different schema so you wont be able to use ServiceStack.Text to automatically deserialize it into the embedded type.
This likely used JSON.NET which you should use instead to deserialize it, otherwise yeah you can use ServiceStack's JS Utils to deserialize arbitrary JSON as you're doing.
If I define a moddle file with bpmn-js like this
{
name: "thisArgument",
superClass: [
"Element"
],
properties: []
},
{
name: "myData",
superClass: [
"Element"
],
properties: [
{
name: "argument",
type: "thisArgument"
}
]
},
Then the resulting XML (when I call saveXML) will have an element called thisArgument, despite the fact that the name is "argument". First, is that a bug? If not, how do I control the output so that the XML contains argument rather than thisArgument? I've searched the docs and examples but can't find how to do this.
The only workaround I found was to make it type: "argument" and then define argument with a superClass of thisArgument and no extra properties (essentially making an alias). However, that only works if all instances of argument are identical. Eg. if the XML needed to be
<A><argument/></A>
<B><argument/></B>
where the argument in A has a different shape than the argument in B, then there would be a conflict since I can't define argument twice.
I can sort of answer my own question. I found this serialize option and experimented, and it mostly does what I want, but sometimes it adds an unwanted xsi:type="originalType" attribute and sometimes it doesn't. Maybe it depends on isBody but I'm not sure. If anyone knows the details of how it works, please reply.
properties: [
{
name: "argument",
type: "thisArgument",
xml: {
serialize: "xsi:type"
},
}
]
The closest thing I found to documentation on it is https://forum.bpmn.io/t/bpmn-json-documentation/1304 which describes it as "additional meta-data impecting XML serialization of a type", so I'd appreciate any extra details anyone can supply.
Update:
The docs don't mention this, but it turns out that serialize: "property" is exactly what I need. This does the same as serialize: "xsi:type" but doesn't add the xsi:type attribute.
xml: {
serialize: "property"
},
I found this by hunting the code in one of the related packages, moddle-xml.
In write.js, there's code that looks for the xsi:type or property entry:
// allow serialization via type
// rather than element name
var asType = serializeAsType(p),
asProperty = serializeAsProperty(p);
In the same file, I found some code that appears to explain why the xsi:type didn't always show up, too:
// only serialize xsi:type if necessary
if (descriptor.name === this.propertyDescriptor.type) {
return attributes;
}
If you want a ServiceBusTrigger to use a setting from de appsettings.json, you can do this like this:
[ServiceBusTrigger("%CommandQueue:QueueName%")]
But what if I have an array of queues in my appsettings and I want to point a one of those.
{
"Queues": [
{
"QueueName": "ThisOne",
"EndPoint": "TheEndMyFriend"
}
]}
I want to specify something like this:
[ServiceBusTrigger("%CommandQueue:Queues{QueueName=ThisOne}:EndPoint%")]
Is this possible?
No. That's not possible. As it currently stands, the best you can do is an index, since this is an array. In other words, if you knew that the one you wanted to use from the array was the second item, for example, then you could use %CommandQueue:Queues:1:Endpoint%. However, that's pretty fragile, as if you change the order, insert a new queue before it, etc., then your code would break.
If you changed the format of your config to an object of objects:
"Queues": {
"ThisOne": {
"EndPoint": "TheEndMyFriend"
}
}
Then, you could use %CommandQueue:Queues:ThisOne:EndPoint%, which would be more robust.
I see that the restkit document is quite nice and has variety of examples on object modelling. There is also an example of nested mapping but I find my scenario little bit different than this. RestKit documentation provides the example mapping of the nested attribute with the following json format.
Sample JSON structure from the RestKit Documentation :
{
"blake": {
"email": "blake#restkit.org",
"favorite_animal": "Monkey"
},
"sarah": {
"email": "sarah#restkit.org",
"favorite_animal": "Cat"
}
}
Suppose that my json is a bit different as this;
My JSON structure :
{
"id" : 1,
"author" : "RestKit",
"blake": {
"email": "blake#restkit.org",
"favorite_animal": "Monkey"
},
"sarah": {
"email": "sarah#restkit.org",
"favorite_animal": "Cat"
}
}
I created two different managedobject model with the following attributes and to many relations.
Two different entities for my structure Product and creator to map the above JSON object.
Product Creator
identifier <------------------- >> name
author email
favouriteAnimal
Now, my mapping would look like this for Product model would be;
This is how I map the Product entity,
[mapping mapKeyPath:"id" toAttribute:"identifier"];
[mapping mapKeyPath:"author" toAttribute: "author"];
But note here, mapping the nested dictionary attribute does not work for me.
// [mapping mapKeyOfNestedDictionaryToAttribute:#"creators"];
Now, in the authors class.
I could not figure out the usual way to map the above JSON structure.
If you have control over the web service, I would strongly recommend reorganizing your response data like this:
{
product:
{
id: 1,
author: 'RestKit',
creators: [
{
id: 1,
name: 'Blake',
email: '...',
favorite_animal: 'Monkey'
},
{
id: 2,
name: 'Sarah',
email: '...',
favorite_animal: 'Cat'
}
]
}
}
Following this structure, you'd be able to use RestKit's nested mapping features, and the relationship would be correctly reflected in the deserialized objects received by the object loader delegate. RestKit relies on naming and structure standards to simplify the code required to achieve the task. Your example deviates from key-value coding standards, so RK doesn't provide an easy way to interact with your data format.
If you don't have access or you can't change it, I think you'll need to map known key-value pairs with a mapping and perform the remaining assignments with a custom evaluator. You'd need to assume the unknown keys are actually name values for associated creators and their associated values contain the attribute hash for each. Using that, you'd then reconstruct each object manually.