Fix #5342 @JsonAnyGetter method serialization can override @JsonProperty on name conflict
#5346
Conversation
| @JsonProperty(value = "additionalProperties") | ||
| private Map<String, Object> hidden; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Modified to hidden, so we get better view of what's actually conflicting --@JsonProperty(value = "additionalProperties")
| @Test | ||
| public void testPrivateAnyGetterSorted() throws Exception { | ||
| PrivateAnyGetterPojoSorted pojo = new PrivateAnyGetterPojoSorted(); | ||
| pojo.add("secondProperty", 2); | ||
| String json = MAPPER.writeValueAsString(pojo); | ||
|
|
||
| assertEquals(a2q("{" + | ||
| "'firstProperty':1," + | ||
| "'secondProperty':2," + // private accesor, wont' work here | ||
| "'thirdProperty':3," + | ||
| "'forthProperty':4}"), | ||
| json); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(I deleted so we have better visibility on subject matter)
@cowtowncoder May I ask for a bit of help on what the correct behavior should be?
So this one is now failing.
@JsonPropertyOrder specified via line 131 does work now.
Now it serializes into...
{
"firstProperty":1,"
secondProperties":{"secondProperty":2}, // <---- as configured
"thirdProperty":3,
"forthProperty":4,
"secondProperty":2
}
... this, but I can't figure out why there is trailing "secondProperty":2 at the end.
Moreover, I am more confused because it the ordering like above should've worked even before since we have
public Map<String, Object> getSecondProperties() {
...declared at line 133.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know for sure, but my guess is that the change broke linkage between
@JsonAnyGetter
private Map<String, Object> secondProperties = new HashMap<>();```
and
public Map<String, Object> getSecondProperties() {
return super.secondProperties;
so that "extra" one is for `@JsonAnyGetter` annotated field.
This whole set of tests and set up is very complicated and quite hard to reason about, unfortunately.
| BeanPropertyWriter prop = props.get(i); | ||
| // Either any-getter as field... | ||
| if (Objects.equals(prop.getName(), anyGetter.getName()) | ||
| if (Objects.equals(prop.getMember().getName(), anyGetter.getName()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure about this one: why is the change necessary/correct?
At least requires a comment on why we are looking at method/field name of concrete accessor, instead of processed property name.
2 participants
No description provided.