johnzon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: Inconsistent Mapping Behavior...
Date Tue, 01 Jan 2019 16:25:42 GMT
Well, ideally, the recursive one and the root one would use the same logic
to map a JsonValue/JsonNumber -> Integer object, right?  Perhaps we need to
converge all this together and save ourselves some code.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:19 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi James
>
> I likely need test cases to understand more the issue but long story short
> one of the two method is recursive not the other so one must handle
> primitives as root types and the other aq nested type. Historically
> primitives were not possible root types so can be something to refind.
>
> Happy to review Jira+pr to be more accurate if needed.
>
> Le mar. 1 janv. 2019 16:31, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> a
> écrit :
>
> > I am looking at JOHNZON-177 and I have noticed that we seem to be mapping
> > primitives inconsistently inside the same class.
> > MappingParserImpl.toObject() and MappingParserImpl.readObject() both
> > contain special logic for handling longs and ints.  Why wouldn't we want
> to
> > handle these types consistently regardless of where they're used (fields
> or
> > the root type)?
> >
> > I have included code to handle the overflow/underflow case with a nice
> > error message and that works fine when I added tests to the
> > DefaultMappingTest from the JSON-B module.  However, I found that
> > MapperTest seems to already have similar tests for invalid long/int
> > values.  As I trace the logic, it doesn't hit my new code.
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message