I need to customize serialization of a POJO in Jackson so that I can apply filter on the properties based on user input
I applied the following annotations on the POJO.
#JsonFilter("userFilter")
#JsonSerialize(using = UserSerializer.class)
The custom serializer class is as below.
public class UserSerializer extends JsonSerializer<User> {
#Override
public void serialize(User value, JsonGenerator jgen,
SerializerProvider provider) throws IOException,
JsonProcessingException {
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
SimpleFilterProvider sfp = new SimpleFilterProvider();
// create a set that holds name of User properties that must be serialized
Set userFilterSet = new HashSet<String>();
userFilterSet.add("firstName");
userFilterSet.add("corporateOrgs");
userFilterSet.add("rights");
userFilterSet.add("requirements");
sfp.addFilter("userFilter",SimpleBeanPropertyFilter.filterOutAllExcept(userFilterSet));
// create an objectwriter which will apply the filters
ObjectWriter writer = mapper.writer(sfp);
String json = writer.writeValueAsString(value);
}
}
I can see that Jackson is trying to serialize the POJO using the custom serializer defined. However it ends up in infinite recursion/stackoverflow as writer.writeValueAsString(value) ends up calling the custom serializer again.
Obviously I have not got some basic stuff right here. If the filtering is done outside the serialize method (for example in a method called from main() ), filtering works as expected.
can anyone please provide insight/link to documentation on how to make use of custom serialization to leverage filtering.
Fields can be filtered out with JsonFilter, or you can create a custom JsonSerialize serializer that writes out only certain fields.
Independent of the use of a JsonFilter, the attempt to recursively reserialize the same object to be serialized (first parameter of the overwritten serialize method) in a user-defined serializer with an object mapper will result in an infinite loop. Instead, in a custom serializer you would rather use the JsonGenerator methods (second parameter of the overridden serialize method) to write out field name/values.
In the following answer both variants (#JsonFilter and #JsonSerialize) are demonstrated, where only a part of the available fields are serialized to JSON.
#JsonFilter
To apply filters to properties based on user input, you do not need to extend JsonSerializer. Instead, you annotate the POJO with JsonFilter and just apply the filtering.
A self-contained example based on your code would look like this:
package com.software7.test;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonProcessingException;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ObjectMapper;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ser.impl.SimpleBeanPropertyFilter;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ser.impl.SimpleFilterProvider;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Set;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Main m = new Main();
try {
m.serialize();
} catch (JsonProcessingException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
void serialize() throws JsonProcessingException {
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
SimpleFilterProvider sfp = new SimpleFilterProvider();
Set<String> userFilterSet = new HashSet<>();
userFilterSet.add("firstName");
userFilterSet.add("corporateOrgs");
userFilterSet.add("rights");
userFilterSet.add("requirements");
sfp.addFilter("UserFilter",
SimpleBeanPropertyFilter.filterOutAllExcept(userFilterSet));
mapper.setFilterProvider(sfp);
User user = new User("Brownrigg", "Don", "none", "+rwx", "n/a",
"some", "superfluous", "properties");
System.out.println(user);
System.out.println(">>>> serializing >>>>");
String s = mapper.writeValueAsString(user);
System.out.println(s);
}
}
User POJO
package com.software7.test;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonFilter;
#JsonFilter("UserFilter")
public class User {
public String lastName;
public String firstName;
public String corporateOrgs;
public String rights;
public String requirements;
public String a, b, c;
public User(String lastName, String firstName, String corporateOrgs, String rights, String requirements,
String a, String b, String c) {
this.lastName = lastName;
this.firstName = firstName;
this.corporateOrgs = corporateOrgs;
this.rights = rights;
this.requirements = requirements;
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
this.c = c;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "User{" +
"lastName='" + lastName + '\'' +
", firstName='" + firstName + '\'' +
", corporateOrgs='" + corporateOrgs + '\'' +
", rights='" + rights + '\'' +
", requirements='" + requirements + '\'' +
", a='" + a + '\'' +
", b='" + b + '\'' +
", c='" + c + '\'' +
'}';
}
}
Test
The debug output of the above program would look like this:
User{lastName='Brownrigg', firstName='Don', corporateOrgs='none', rights='+rwx', requirements='n/a', a='some', b='superfluous', c='properties'}
>>>> serializing >>>>
{"firstName":"Don","corporateOrgs":"none","rights":"+rwx","requirements":"n/a"}
The test is successful! As you can see, the properties lastName, a, b and c are removed.
#JsonSerialize Alternative
If you want to use a customer serializer instead you can do like so:
Replace the annotation:
#JsonFilter("UserFilter")
with
#JsonSerialize(using = UserSerializer.class)
but do not use both.
The UserSerializer class could look like this:
package com.software7.test;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonGenerator;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonProcessingException;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.JsonSerializer;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.SerializerProvider;
import java.io.IOException;
public class UserSerializer extends JsonSerializer<User> {
#Override
public void serialize(User user, JsonGenerator jsonGenerator, SerializerProvider serializerProvider)
throws IOException, JsonProcessingException {
jsonGenerator.writeStartObject();
jsonGenerator.writeObjectField("firstName", user.firstName);
jsonGenerator.writeObjectField("corporateOrgs", user.corporateOrgs);
jsonGenerator.writeObjectField("rights", user.rights);
jsonGenerator.writeObjectField("requirements", user.requirements);
jsonGenerator.writeEndObject();
}
}
Finally, the serialization method would look like this:
void serialize() throws JsonProcessingException {
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
User user = new User("Brownrigg", "Don", "none", "+rwx", "n/a",
"some", "superfluous", "properties");
System.out.println(user);
System.out.println(">>>> serializing >>>>");
String s = mapper.writeValueAsString(user);
System.out.println(s);
}
The result would be the same in this example. Which variant is better suited depends on the specific use case or personal preferences.
Related
I have created below JUnit5 parameterized test with ArgumentsSource for loading arguments for the test:
public class DemoModelValidationTest {
public ParamsProvider paramsProvider;
public DemoModelValidationTest () {
try {
paramsProvider = new ParamsProvider();
}
catch (Exception iaex) {
}
}
#ParameterizedTest
#ArgumentsSource(ParamsProvider.class)
void testAllConfigurations(int configIndex, String a) throws Exception {
paramsProvider.executeSimulation(configIndex);
}
}
and the ParamsProvider class looks like below:
public class ParamsProvider implements ArgumentsProvider {
public static final String modelPath = System.getProperty("user.dir") + File.separator + "demoModels";
YAMLDeserializer deserializedYAML;
MetaModelToValidationModel converter;
ValidationRunner runner;
List<Configuration> configurationList;
List<Arguments> listOfArguments;
public ParamsProvider() throws Exception {
configurationList = new ArrayList<>();
listOfArguments = new LinkedList<>();
deserializedYAML = new YAMLDeserializer(modelPath);
deserializedYAML.load();
converter = new MetaModelToValidationModel(deserializedYAML);
runner = converter.convert();
configurationList = runner.getConfigurations();
for (int i = 0; i < configurationList.size(); i++) {
listOfArguments.add(Arguments.of(i, configurationList.get(i).getName()));
}
}
public void executeSimulation(int configListIndex) throws Exception {
final Configuration config = runner.getConfigurations().get(configListIndex);
runner.run(config);
runner.getReporter().consolePrintReport();
}
#Override
public Stream<? extends Arguments> provideArguments(ExtensionContext context) {
return listOfArguments.stream().map(Arguments::of);
// return Stream.of(Arguments.of(0, "Actuator Power"), Arguments.of(1, "Error Logging"));
}}
In the provideArguments() method, the commented out code is working fine, but the first line of code
listOfArguments.stream().map(Arguments::of)
is returning the following error:
org.junit.platform.commons.PreconditionViolationException: Configuration error: You must configure at least one set of arguments for this #ParameterizedTest
I am not sure whether I am having a casting problem for the stream in provideArguments() method, but I guess it somehow cannot map the elements of listOfArguments to the stream, which can finally take the form like below:
Stream.of(Arguments.of(0, "Actuator Power"), Arguments.of(1, "Error Logging"))
Am I missing a proper stream mapping of listOfArguments?
provideArguments(…) is called before your test is invoked.
Your ParamsProvider class is instantiated by JUnit. Whatever you’re doing in desiralizeAndCreateValidationRunnerInstance should be done in the ParamsProvider constructor.
Also you’re already wrapping the values fro deserialised configurations to Arguments and you’re double wrapping them in providesArguments.
Do this:
#Override
public Stream<? extends Arguments> provideArguments(ExtensionContext context) {
return listOfArguments.stream();
}}
All the examples I've seen that use aspect oriented programming for logging either log just class, method name and duration, and if they log parameters and return values they simply use ToString(). I need to have more control over what is logged. For example I want to skip passwords, or in some cases log all properties of an object but in other cases just the id property.
Any suggestions? I looked at AspectJ in Java and Unity interception in C# and could not find a solution.
You could try introducing parameter annotations to augment your parameters with some attributes. One of those attributes could signal to skip logging the parameter, another one could be used to specify a converter class for the string representation.
With the following annotations:
#Documented
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.METHOD)
public #interface Log {
}
#Documented
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.PARAMETER)
public #interface SkipLogging {
}
#Documented
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.PARAMETER)
public #interface ToStringWith {
Class<? extends Function<?, String>> value();
}
the aspect could look like this:
import java.lang.reflect.Parameter;
import java.util.function.Function;
import java.util.stream.Collectors;
import java.util.stream.IntStream;
import org.aspectj.lang.reflect.MethodSignature;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
public aspect LoggingAspect {
private final static Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(LoggingAspect.class);
pointcut loggableMethod(): execution(#Log * *..*.*(..));
before(): loggableMethod() {
MethodSignature signature = (MethodSignature) thisJoinPoint.getSignature();
Parameter[] parameters = signature.getMethod()
.getParameters();
String message = IntStream.range(0, parameters.length)
.filter(i -> this.isLoggable(parameters[i]))
.<String>mapToObj(i -> toString(parameters[i], thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[i]))
.collect(Collectors.joining(", ",
"method execution " + signature.getName() + "(", ")"));
Logger methodLogger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(
thisJoinPointStaticPart.getSignature().getDeclaringType());
methodLogger.debug(message);
}
private boolean isLoggable(Parameter parameter) {
return parameter.getAnnotation(SkipLogging.class) == null;
}
private String toString(Parameter parameter, Object value) {
ToStringWith toStringWith = parameter.getAnnotation(ToStringWith.class);
if (toStringWith != null) {
Class<? extends Function<?, String>> converterClass =
toStringWith.value();
try {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
Function<Object, String> converter = (Function<Object, String>)
converterClass.newInstance();
String str = converter.apply(value);
return String.format("%s='%s'", parameter.getName(), str);
} catch (Exception e) {
logger.error("Couldn't instantiate toString converter for logging "
+ converterClass.getName(), e);
return String.format("%s=<error converting to string>",
parameter.getName());
}
} else {
return String.format("%s='%s'", parameter.getName(), String.valueOf(value));
}
}
}
Test code:
public static class SomethingToStringConverter implements Function<Something, String> {
#Override
public String apply(Something something) {
return "Something nice";
}
}
#Log
public void test(
#ToStringWith(SomethingToStringConverter.class) Something something,
String string,
#SkipLogging Class<?> cls,
Object object) {
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// execution of this method should log the following message:
// method execution test(something='Something nice', string='some string', object='null')
test(new Something(), "some string", Object.class, null);
}
I used Java 8 Streams API in my answer for it's compactness, you could convert the code to normal Java code if you don't use Java 8 features or need better efficiency. It's just to give you an idea.
i have two Presenters: A DevicePresenter and a ContainerPresenter. I place a PlaceRequest in the DevicePresenter to call the ContainerPresenter with some parameters like this:
PlaceRequest request = new PlaceRequest.Builder()
.nameToken("containersPage")
.with("action","editContainer")
.with("containerEditId", selectedContainerDto.getUuid().toString())
.build();
placeManager.revealPlace(request);
In my ContainersPresenter i have this overridden method:
#Override
public void prepareFromRequest(PlaceRequest placeRequest) {
Log.debug("prepareFromRequest in ContainersPresenter");
super.prepareFromRequest(placeRequest);
String actionString = placeRequest.getParameter("action", "");
String id;
//TODO: Should we change that to really retrieve the object from the server? Or should we introduce a model that keeps all values and inject that into all presenters?
if (actionString.equals("editContainer")) {
try {
id = placeRequest.getParameter("id", null);
for(ContainerDto cont : containerList) {
Log.debug("Compare " + id + " with " + cont.getUuid());
if(id.equals(cont.getUuid())) {
containerDialog.setCurrentContainerDTO(new ContainerDto());
addToPopupSlot(containerDialog);
break;
}
}
} catch (NumberFormatException e) {
Log.debug("id cannot be retrieved from URL");
}
}
}
But when revealPlace is called, the URL in the browser stays the same and the default presenter (Home) is shown instead.
When i print the request, it seems to be fine:
PlaceRequest(nameToken=containersPage, params={action=editContainer, containerEditId=8fa5f730-fe0f-11e3-a3ac-0800200c9a66})
And my NameTokens are like this:
public class NameTokens {
public static final String homePage = "!homePage";
public static final String containersPage = "!containersPage";
public static final String devicesPage = "!devicesPage";
public static String getHomePage() {
return homePage;
}
public static String getDevicesPage() {
return devicesPage;
}
public static String getContainersPage() {
return containersPage;
}
}
What did i miss? Thanks!
In your original code, when constructing your PlaceRequest, you forgot the '!' at the beginning of your nametoken.
.nameToken("containersPage")
while your NameTokens entry is
public static final String containersPage = "!containersPage";
As you noted, referencing the constant in NameTokens is less prone to such easy mistakes to make!
Sometimes the problem exists "between the ears". If i avoid strings but use the proper symbol from NameTokens like
PlaceRequest request = new PlaceRequest.Builder()
.nameToken(NameTokens.containersPage)
.with("action","editContainer")
.with("containerEditId", selectedContainerDto.getUuid().toString())
.build();
it works just fine. Sorry!
Is it possible to use generic types with declare parents such that a class defined with generics implements an interface with the same generic types
i.e declare parents: AClass<Generic1,Generic2> implements
AnInterface<Generic1,Generic2>
What I am saying is whether it is possible to pass the generic types of the child to parents
Kind of. Check this out:
Generic class:
package de.scrum_master.app;
public class KeyValuePair<K,V> {
private K key;
private V value;
KeyValuePair(K key, V value) {
this.key = key;
this.value = value;
}
public K getKey() { return key; }
public V getValue() { return value; }
#Override
public String toString() {
return "KeyValuePair [key=" + key + ", value=" + value + "]";
}
}
Generic interface:
package de.scrum_master.app;
public interface KeyValueComparator<K, V> {
boolean equalsKey(K otherKey);
boolean equalsValue(V otherValue);
}
Aspect with ITD:
The ITD (inter-type definition) makes sure that the class implements the interface and also gets method implementations for the interface at the same time.
package de.scrum_master.aspect;
import de.scrum_master.app.KeyValuePair;
import de.scrum_master.app.KeyValueComparator;
public aspect InterfaceIntroductionAspect {
declare parents : KeyValuePair implements KeyValueComparator;
public boolean KeyValuePair.equalsKey(K otherKey) {
return this.getKey().equals(otherKey);
}
public boolean KeyValuePair.equalsValue(V otherValue) {
return this.getValue().equals(otherValue);
}
}
Driver application:
Create two different types of class objects and try to cast them both to the introduced interface:
package de.scrum_master.app;
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
KeyValuePair<Integer, String> pair1 = new KeyValuePair<>(11, "eleven");
System.out.println(pair1);
KeyValueComparator<Integer, String> comparator1 = (KeyValueComparator<Integer, String>) pair1;
System.out.println("equalsKey = " + comparator1.equalsKey(12));
System.out.println("equalsValue = " + comparator1.equalsValue("eleven"));
KeyValuePair<String, Integer> pair2 = new KeyValuePair<>("twelve", 12);
System.out.println(pair2);
KeyValueComparator<String, Integer> comparator2 = (KeyValueComparator<String, Integer>) pair2;
System.out.println("equalsKey = " + comparator2.equalsKey("twelve"));
System.out.println("equalsValue = " + comparator2.equalsValue(11));
}
}
Output:
KeyValuePair [key=11, value=eleven]
equalsKey = false
equalsValue = true
KeyValuePair [key=twelve, value=12]
equalsKey = true
equalsValue = false
Can you tell me how can I use Gson to extract two distinct object defined in this string:
http://json.parser.online.fr/
I attempt to use
gson.fromJson(json, SeedAttribs.class);
and
gson.fromJson(json, SettingsAttribs.class);
but neither is working. I'm surprised why not.
I would also need a way to replace this json string when particular object eg. SeedAttribs changes. I need a way to rewrite it while SettingsAttribs will NOT change at all.
How can this be done?
Thank you for answers!
Make sure your original JSon string contains correct format. The best way is to serialize your object with GSON. Here is the code:
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Gson gson = new Gson();
SettingsAttribs st = new SettingsAttribs();
st.setField1("value1");
st.setField2("value2");
// report constructed object
System.out.println("st: " + st);
// serialize to json
String json = gson.toJson(st, SettingsAttribs.class);
System.out.println("json: " + json);
// deserialize form json
SettingsAttribs restoredSettings = gson.fromJson(json, SettingsAttribs.class);
System.out.println("restoredSettings: " + restoredSettings);
}
It compiles and runs. The output it produces:
st: SettingsAttribs [field1=value1, field2=value2]
json: {"field1":"value1","field2":"value2"}
restoredSettings: SettingsAttribs [field1=value1, field2=value2]
And SettingsAttribs class:
public class SettingsAttribs
{
private String field1;
private String field2;
public String getField1()
{
return field1;
}
public void setField1(String field1)
{
this.field1 = field1;
}
public String getField2()
{
return field2;
}
public void setField2(String field2)
{
this.field2 = field2;
}
#Override
public String toString()
{
return "SettingsAttribs [field1=" + field1 + ", field2=" + field2 + "]";
}
}