Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
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
add option to not parse beyond end of structure #435
add option to not parse beyond end of structure #435
Changes from 1 commit
6b19ca8
d7f1bd2
9ec0389
f0c1fdf
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@petar IIUC this is perhaps a nice config option, but only slightly helps fix the problem you're likely currently worrying about (i.e. streaming decodes of multiple dag-json objects for Reframe using Edelweiss).
Since the specific application format (in this case Reframe's HTTP+dag-json transport) has its own way of dealing with concatenating dag-json blobs (in this case appending
\n
) you're going to need some custom code anyhow to parse the\n
.At that point is it so different from just using
Unmarshal(na, json.NewDecoder(r), cfg)
directly and then trying to slurp up one more\n
before continuing instead of usingDecode
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The issue with this proposal is that
json.NewDecoder
won't decode bytes and other IPLD-specific objects. Right?The solution to Edelweiss' problem could be composed of two steps:
\n
-separated results.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just wanted to flag more concretely that this PR just allows for using:
DecodeOptions{ ParseLinks : true, ParseBytes: true, DontParseBeyondEnd : true }.Decode(na, r)
rather than:
Unmarshal(na, json.NewDecoder(r), DecodeOptions{ ParseLinks : true, ParseBytes: true })
.Is this config mostly about helping discoverability so people know how to do this (i.e. is the Unmarshal code path not obvious enough)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It turns out that Unmarshal is deprecated.