Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

JSON decoding less strict #237

Open
td5r opened this issue Nov 10, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

JSON decoding less strict #237

td5r opened this issue Nov 10, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement

Comments

@td5r
Copy link
Contributor

td5r commented Nov 10, 2019

I want the JSON decoding to map it received data to provided output port type.

Currently this fail because the JSON decoding checks for absolute equal JSON structure and don't allows sub sets or picking
@kairichard
Copy link
Contributor

@td5r I would actually move to use this https://github.com/thedevsaddam/gojsonq instead.
And implement it as an operator that has a selector and generic output. This would allow users to query only small portions of otherwise large JSON structures w/o having to deal with defining a type.

This was referenced Dec 2, 2019
Merged
Merged
kairichard added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 3, 2019
@kairichard
Instead of defining path as props they are now in ports (#239)
2b6c249 
This PR improves upon #238 where the JSON paths where configured through properties - which led to unparseable port references in the resulting bundle with the message Message: "unknown port: bpi: jsonpath)bpi.USD.rate. That is because the properties would get translated into ports with names like bpi.USD.rate which confuses the parser.

I changed the operator to now accept the paths as inputs and map them to the outports via names given in the properties.

//cc @td5r
-- related to #237
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@kairichard @td5r