Usage of abstract class in the builder pattern?

Usage of abstract class in the builder pattern? - java

I have two types of payload coming from upstream: It's either PayloadA or PayloadB. There are some common fields between PayloadA and PayloadB so I created Payload class with those common fields and for rest I created two builder class one for each payload.
Below is the builder class for PayloadA:
public final class PayloadA {
private final String clientId;
private final String langid;
private final String deviceId;
private final Map<String, String> applicationPayload;
private PayloadA(Builder builder) {
this.clientId = builder.clientId;
this.langid = builder.langid;
this.deviceId = builder.deviceId;
this.applicationPayload = builder.applicationPayload.build();
}
public static class Builder {
protected final String deviceId;
protected String clientId;
protected String langid;
protected ImmutableMap.Builder<String, String> applicationPayload = ImmutableMap.builder();
public Builder(String deviceId) {
this.deviceId = deviceId;
}
public Builder setClientId(String clientId) {
this.clientId = clientId;
return this;
}
public Builder setLangid(String langid) {
this.langid = langid;
return this;
}
public Builder setPayload(Map<String, String> payload) {
this.applicationPayload.putAll(payload);
return this;
}
public PayloadA build() {
return new PayloadA(this);
}
}
// getters and to string here
}
Now below is the class for PayloadB:
public final class PayloadB {
private final String clientid;
private final String type;
private final String payId;
private PayloadB(Builder builder) {
this.clientid = builder.clientid;
this.type = builder.type;
this.payId = builder.payId;
}
public static class Builder {
protected final String type;
protected String payId;
protected String clientid;
public Builder(String type) {
this.type = type;
}
public Builder setPayId(String payId) {
this.payId = payId;
return this;
}
public Builder setClientId(String clientid) {
this.clientid = clientid;
return this;
}
public PayloadB build() {
return new PayloadB(this);
}
}
// getters and to string here
}
Now I have created another class which is Payload class (does this have to be abstract class?) in which I have all the common fields both for PayloadA and PayloadB so I have to set these fields as well somehow and I am not sure how to use below class:
public abstract class Payload {
private long createTimestamp;
private String partition;
private String key;
// some other fields here
// getters and setters here
}
Question:
Now let's say if we get PayloadB from upstream, then I want key field in the Payload class to be whatever is the value of type in PayloadB class in all lower case and if we get PayloadA from upstream, then I want key to be world.
And also if we get PayloadB from upstream and if clientId was set, then I want partition to be 15 and if we get PayloadA from upstream and if clientId was set then I want partition to be 15 but if it was not set and langId was there, then I want partition to be 17.
And I want to set createTimestamp as well which I have to do after building a Payload object. So for example I have build PayloadA object and it will be passed to some other class and there I need to set createTimestamp value on PayloadA object. Not sure how to do that as well? Do I have to clone something?
How can I use Payload class in my builder pattern? I will get two different payloads and there will be few things common in them so common fields I have separated them out in an abstract class.
Should I have on big builder pattern class with everything in it or multiple builder pattern extending something?

I won't pass builder instance to the PayloadX constructor. Either pass values as individual constructor arguments or call setters.
You can define Payload.Builder which would hold common fields of PayloadA and PayloadB. This class will be an abstract class declaring an abstract build method.
PayloadA.Builder and PayloadB.Builder will extend Payload.Builder, implementing the build method.
In this build method you implement whatever custom logic you need to create and set the fields of the PayloadX.
It seems like you want to make your class immutable (careful with applicationPayload by the way). In this case you can't really "set" anything. You can only produce a new instance. There are many ways to do this, for instance you can implement PayloadX withTimestamp(...) method. Or you can extend your build to accept PayloadX and set timestamp there, resulting in something like new PayloadX.Builder(payloadXInstance).setTimestamp(...).build().

Related

Unable to deserialize when using new Record classes

I am trying to see if I can replace my existing Pojos with the new Record classes in Java 14. But unable to do so. Getting following error:
com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.exc.InvalidDefinitionException: Cannot
construct instance of com.a.a.Post (no Creators, like default
construct, exist): cannot deserialize from Object value (no delegate-
or property-based Creator)
I get that the error is saying the record has no constructors, but from what I see the record class takes care of it in the background and relevant getters are also set in the background (not getters exactly but id() title() and so on without the get prefix). Is it cos Spring has not adopted the latest Java 14 record yet? Please advice. Thanks.
I am doing this in Spring Boot version 2.2.6 and using Java 14.
The following works using the usual POJOs.
PostClass
public class PostClass {
private int userId;
private int id;
private String title;
private String body;
public int getUserId() {
return userId;
}
public void setUserId(int userId) {
this.userId = userId;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getTitle() {
return title;
}
public void setTitle(String title) {
this.title = title;
}
public String getBody() {
return body;
}
public void setBody(String body) {
this.body = body;
}
}
Method to call rest service which works now as I am using the above POJO.
public PostClass[] getPosts() throws URISyntaxException {
String url = "https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts";
return template.getForEntity(new URI(url), PostClass[].class).getBody();
}
But if I switch to following where I am using record instead, I am getting the above error.
The new record class.
public record Post(int userId, int id, String title, String body) {
}
Changing the method to use the record instead which fails.
public Post[] getPosts() throws URISyntaxException {
String url = "https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts";
return template.getForEntity(new URI(url), Post[].class).getBody();
}
EDIT:
Tried adding constructors as follows to the record Post and same error:
public record Post(int userId, int id, String title, String body) {
public Post {
}
}
or
public record Post(int userId, int id, String title, String body) {
public Post(int userId, int id, String title, String body) {
this.userId = userId;
this.id = id;
this.title = title;
this.body = body;
}
}

It is possible with some Jackson Annotations, which cause Jackson to use fields instead of getters. Still far less verbose than a pre-Java 14 class (without Lombok or similar solutions).
record Foo(#JsonProperty("a") int a, #JsonProperty("b") int b){
}
This probably works because according to https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/359:
Declaration annotations are permitted on record components if they are
applicable to record components, parameters, fields, or methods.
Declaration annotations that are applicable to any of these targets
are propagated to implicit declarations of any mandated members.
See also: When is the #JsonProperty property used and what is it used for?
It is also possible to make use #JsonAutoDetect
#JsonAutoDetect(fieldVisibility = JsonAutoDetect.Visibility.ANY)
record Bar(int a, int b){
}
If configuring the Objectmapper to use field Visibility globally, this annotation on class level is not needed.
See also: How to specify jackson to only use fields - preferably globally
Example:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws JsonProcessingException {
ObjectMapper om = new ObjectMapper();
System.out.println(om.writeValueAsString(new Foo(1, 2))); //{"a":1,"b":2}
System.out.println(om.writeValueAsString(new Bar(3, 4))); //{"a":3,"b":4}
}
record Foo(#JsonProperty("a") int a, #JsonProperty("b") int b){
}
#JsonAutoDetect(fieldVisibility = JsonAutoDetect.Visibility.ANY)
record Bar(int a, int b){
}
}
There is also a Github issue for that feature: https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-future-ideas/issues/46

This is slated for jackson 2.12
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-future-ideas/issues/46

The compiler generates the constructor and other accessor method for a Record.
In your case,
public final class Post extends java.lang.Record {
public Post(int, int java.lang.String, java.lang.String);
public java.lang.String toString();
public final int hashCode();
public final boolean equals(java.lang.Object);
public int userId();
public int id();
public java.lang.String title();
public java.lang.String body();
}
Here you can see that there is not default constructor which is needed got Jackson. The constructor you used is a compact constructor,
public Post {
}
You can define a default/no args constructor as,
public record Post(int userId, int id, String title, String body) {
public Post() {
this(0,0, null, null);
}
}
But Jackson uses Getter and Setters to set values. So in short, you can not use Record for mapping the response.
EDIT as PSA: Jackson can properly serialize and deserialize records as of 2.12 which has been released.

Use the parameter names module for jackson, https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-modules-java8/tree/master/parameter-names (make sure the compiler sets -parameters) or add `#JsonProperty("name") to each field in the record
add #JsonCreator to the constructor. I can't tell if the inheritance will work properly, so you might have to explicitly declare the constructor and annotate it.
If a public accessor method or (non-compact) canonical constructor is declared explicitly, then it only has the annotations which appear on it directly; nothing is propagated from the corresponding record component to these members.
From https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/384
So add
new ObjectMapper().registerModules(new ParameterNamesModule())
and try
#JsonCreator record Value(String x);
or something like
record Value(String x) {
#JsonCreator
public Value(String x) {
this.x = x;
}
}
or all the way to
record Value(#JsonProperty("x") String x) {
#JsonCreator
public Value(#JsonProperty("x") String x) {
this.x = x;
}
}
This is how I get immutable pojos with lombok and jackson to work, and I don't see why records wouldn't work under the same format. My setup is Jackson parameter names module, -parameters compiler flag for java 8 (I don't think this is required for like jdk9+), #JsonCreator on the constructor. Example of a real class working with this setup.
#Value
#AllArgsConstructor(onConstructor_ = #JsonCreator)
public final class Address {
private final String line1;
private final String line2;
private final String city;
private final String region;
private final String postalCode;
private final CountryCode country;
}

"Changing" complex immutable object

This is the code:
class A{
prop1, prop2, prop3, prop4, ...
private A(ABuilder b){
this.prop1 = b.prop1;
...
}
A changeProp2(){
//easiest way to return new immutable A?
}
class ABuilder{
withProp1()
withProp2()
withProp3()
...
build()
}
}
A a = new ABuilder().withProp1().withProp2().build();
A newA = a.changeProp2();
I have immutable object (A in this case), that is constructed using Builder ABuilder. Now, when I want new A object from existing complex A object, in my case I can call method changeProp2(). This method should copy all the inner properties of object a, change only property2 to new value, and return new object newA.
What is the best way to do this?
Options I found so far are:
Inside changeProp2() method, I could copy all the properties - but this seems too much, and also not reusable if I have in future changeProp3() method.
//option1
A changeProp2(){
return new ABuilder().withProp1(this.prop1).withProp2("newProp2")....build();
}
Adding copy constructor to Builder, that will init Builder with values from existing object A, like this:
//option2
class ABuilder{
ABuilder(A a){
this.prop1 = a.prop1;
...
}
}
A changeProp2(){
return new ABuilder(this).withProp2("newProp2").build();
}
This seems more reasonable for me in this case.
Are there any more options than this?

Instead of returning a fully-constructed A value from changeProp2, you can create a method such as createCopyFrom that returns a builder for A. For example:
public class A {
private final String prop1;
private final String prop2;
private final String prop3;
public A(String prop1, String prop2, String prop3) {
this.prop1 = prop1;
this.prop2 = prop2;
this.prop3 = prop3;
}
public ABuilder createCopyFrom() {
return new ABuilder()
.withProp1(prop1)
.withProp2(prop2)
.withProp3(prop3);
}
// ...getters...
}
public class ABuilder {
private String prop1;
private String prop2;
private String prop3;
public ABuilder withProp1(String prop1) {
this.prop1 = prop1;
return this;
}
public ABuilder withProp2(String prop2) {
this.prop2 = prop2;
return this;
}
public ABuilder withProp3(String prop3) {
this.prop3 = prop3;
return this;
}
public A build() {
return new A(prop1, prop2, prop3)
}
}
A few important things of note: In the example above, I used a fluent interface for ABuilder, but that is not required. It makes returning the ABuilder from createCopyFrom easier, but it can just as easily be done if the ABuilder methods do not return this. Instead, you would set each property (e.g. withProp1, withProp2, etc.) and then return the builder as follows:
public ABuilder createCopyFrom() {
ABuilder builder = new ABuilder();
builder.withProp1(prop1)
builder.withProp2(prop2)
builder.withProp3(prop3);
return builder;
}
Also, if you want to have a method such as changeProp2, you can utilize the createCopyFrom method to change just the property of interest:
public class A {
// ...same methods and fields as before...
public A changeProp2(String prop2) {
return createCopyFrom().withProp2(prop2).build();
}
}

The method returns a superclass object with subclass fields

I have a Movie object in the program
public class Movie extends BaseDTO {
...
public static class Builder<T extends Builder> extends BaseDTO.Builder<T> { ... }
}
from this object inherits UserMovie
public class UserMovie extends Movie {
//there are two additional fields
private final Integer yourRating;
private final boolean favorited;
public static class Builder extends Movie.Builder<Builder> { ... }
}
In some part of the code I want to convert entities to DTO objects. I have two methods. One to convert entities into Movie DTO
static Movie toMovieDto(final MovieEntity movieEntity) {
return ((Movie.Builder) initMovieDto(movieEntity)).build();
}
the second method to convert to UserMovie DTO
static UserMovie toUserMovieDto(final MovieEntity movieEntity, final UserEntity userEntity) {
final UserMovie.Builder builder = initMovieDto(movieEntity);
builder.withYourRating(...);
builder.withFavorited(userEntity.getFavoritesMovies().contains(movieEntity));
return builder.build();
}
both methods use a common method to initialize data in the Builder pattern
private static UserMovie.Builder initMovieDto(final MovieEntity movieEntity) {
final UserMovie.Builder builder = new UserMovie.Builder(
movieEntity.getTitle(),
movieEntity.getType()
)
.withId(movieEntity.getId().toString());
builder.withRating(...);
...
return builder;
}
It turns out that the toMovieDto method returns the UserMovie object. Why is this happening? I do not want private fields for UserMovie to be returned in Movie. How to fix it?

Are you worried that someone might cast the Movie returned from toMovieDto into UserMovie? I wouldn't worry about that much - this requires explicit casting. (Compare it how methods in e.g. Collections class are defined, or in any Collection implementations).
If you are really worried about security (and only in this case) you need to create another initMovieDto method, that user builder from Movie and not from UserMovie like currently.
So something like this:
private static Movie.Builder initMovieDto(final MovieEntity movieEntity) {
final Movie.Builder builder = new Movie.Builder(
movieEntity.getTitle(),
movieEntity.getType()
)
.withId(movieEntity.getId().toString());
...
return builder;
}
static Movie toMovieDto(final MovieEntity movieEntity) {
return ((Movie.Builder) initMovieDto(movieEntity)).build();
}
and separate for UserMovie:
private static UserMovie.Builder initUserMovieDto(final MovieEntity movieEntity) {
final UserMovie.Builder builder = new UserMovie.Builder(
movieEntity.getTitle(),
movieEntity.getType()
)
.withId(movieEntity.getId().toString());
builder.withRating(...);
...
return builder;
}
static UserMovie toUserMovieDto(final MovieEntity movieEntity, final UserEntity userEntity) {
final UserMovie.Builder builder = initUserMovieDto(movieEntity);
builder.withYourRating(...);
builder.withFavorited(userEntity.getFavoritesMovies().contains(movieEntity));
return builder.build();
}
This way you will return not only the interface like you want but also concrete class of the same type as the return type in toMovieDto and toUserMovieDto.
Another option would be to define UserMovie builder such that one of it's options would accept a Movie builder.

Jakson polymorphic Enum case

I am glued with some Jackson polymorphic problem.
I work on a web JDR Character Editor personnal project. I use Springboot and try to stuck with the phylosophy. Moreover, I try to make some independent packages, because of study-case for my real work (another springboot project).
With no Jackson configuration, I have no problem for serialization of a Competence. But when I try to get back any modification on the web editor, so when Jackson make a deserialization of a Competence, problems occur with "dependance" property.
Here are my classes:
The one I try to serialize/deserialize:
public class Competence implements Composante, ComposanteTemplate {
public enum Categorie {
APPRENTI,
COMPAGNON
}
private String nom;
private String description;
private Categorie categorie;
private Chapitre chapitre;
private AttributTemplate dependance;
private List sousCompetences = new ArrayList();
public String getNom() {
return nom;
}
public void setNom(String nom) {
this.nom = nom;
}
public String getDescription() {
return description;
}
public void setDescription(String description) {
this.description = description;
}
public Competence getTemplate() {
return this;
}
public Categorie getCategorie() {
return categorie;
}
public void setCategorie(Categorie categorie) {
this.categorie = categorie;
}
public Chapitre getChapitre() {
return chapitre;
}
public void setChapitre(Chapitre chapitre) {
this.chapitre = chapitre;
}
public AttributTemplate getDependance() {
return dependance;
}
public void setDependance(AttributTemplate dependance) {
this.dependance = dependance;
}
public List getSousCompetences() {
return sousCompetences;
}
public void setSousCompetences(List sousCompetences) {
this.sousCompetences = sousCompetences;
}
public boolean isOuverte() {
return !sousCompetences.isEmpty();
}
}
The superclass of the property I have a problem with:
public interface AttributTemplate extends ComposanteTemplate {}
The two subclasses which could be use for Competence#dependance property:
public enum Carac implements AttributTemplate, Attribut {
FORT(Type.PHYSIQUE),
AGILE(Type.PHYSIQUE),
RESISTANT(Type.PHYSIQUE),
OBSERVATEUR(Type.PHYSIQUE),
SAVANT(Type.MENTALE),
RUSE(Type.MENTALE),
TALENTUEUX(Type.MENTALE),
CHARMEUR(Type.MENTALE);
public enum Type {
PHYSIQUE,
MENTALE
}
public final Type type;
public final String nom = name().toLowerCase();
private String description;
Carac(Type type) {
this.type = type;
}
#Override
public String getNom() { return nom; }
#Override
public String getDescription() { return description; }
#Override
public Carac getTemplate() { return this; }
public void setDescription(String description) { this.description = description; }
}
public enum ArtTemplate implements AttributTemplate {
ART_GUERRIER(2, 1),
ART_ETRANGE(1, 2),
ART_GUILDIEN(1, 1);
public static final String ART_PREFIX = "ART";
public final String nom = name().toLowerCase().replace("_", " ");
public final int nbCaracsPhysiques;
public final int nbCaracsMentales;
private String description;
ArtTemplate(int nbCaracsPhysiques, int nbCaracsMentales) {
this.nbCaracsMentales = nbCaracsMentales;
this.nbCaracsPhysiques = nbCaracsPhysiques;
}
#Override
public String getNom() {
return nom;
}
#Override
public String getDescription() {
return description;
}
public void setDescription(String description) {
this.description = description;
}
public int getNbCaracs() {
return nbCaracsPhysiques + nbCaracsMentales;
}
}
The result json (and then the json I send) is:
{"nom":"Comp_1489746646510","description":"ezbuixnwrclfvmgwdviubcauenzytpzzvumnohwyhpuynxaqhkjdbqygtrmbtlschthovuyoiolkauucwokkfjnaujnufshrjboykuqce","categorie":"APPRENTI","chapitre":"GUERRE","dependance":"ART_ETRANGE","ouverte":false,"sousCompetences":[]}
QUESTION:
I understand that my problem is caused by the abstract relation AttributTemplate, and then when Jackson try to deserialize, he does not know which of Carac or ArtTemplate class to use.
I try to keep unchanged Competence (Competence come from an external jar), so no annotation on this class is possible.
I've tried many of the solutions I found (Jackson 1.5: Polymorphic Type Handling, first steps ) and the only one which has worked was to define a DeserializationProblemHandler
mapper.addHandler(new DeserializationProblemHandler() {
#Override
public Object handleMissingInstantiator(DeserializationContext ctxt, Class<?> instClass, JsonParser p, String msg) throws IOException {
if (instClass == AttributTemplate.class) {
String name = p.getText();
return !name.startsWith(ArtTemplate.ART_PREFIX) ? Carac.valueOf(name) : ArtTemplate.valueOf(name);
}
return super.handleMissingInstantiator(ctxt, instClass, p, msg);
}
});
But I feel bad with this solution, because I am sure there is an other beautiful one.
So is it possible to configure the mapper in order that he is able to determine which of Carac or ArtTemplate he must use to get AttributTemplate?
EDIT:
I managed to have this:
{"nom":"Comp_1489756873433","description":"kruzueemlwisibshlkotasayfkhdqkqolvhlqgsnntndkpvbmmgklqysabiakaolempmupeyiqaztdcrhwimdksgzybbdzttwnwqjxhfo","categorie":"COMPAGNON","chapitre":"GUERRE","dependance":["mova.ged.perso.inne.Carac","AGILE"],"ouverte":true,"sousCompetences":[...]}
by configuring like this the mapper
abstract class CompetenceMixIn {
private AttributTemplate dependance;
#JsonTypeInfo(use=JsonTypeInfo.Id.CLASS, include=JsonTypeInfo.As.EXISTING_PROPERTY, property="dependance")
#JsonSubTypes({ #JsonSubTypes.Type(value = Carac.class, name = "carac"), #JsonSubTypes.Type(value = ArtTemplate.class, name = "artTemplate") })
public void setDependance(AttributTemplate dependance) {
this.dependance = dependance;
}
}
ObjectMapper mapper = jsonConverter.getObjectMapper();
mapper.addMixIn(Competence.class, CompetenceMixIn.class);
As you could see, I'm still parasited with the array that wrapped dependance value. I would (...)"dependance": "AGILE", (...) not (...)"dependance":["mova.ged.perso.inne.Carac", "AGILE"], (...)
And I don't know what to change in order to have this.

i have been looking into what you are trying to do. Unfortunatelly, I believe there are issues with Enums + inheritance.
I have an alternative solution that you could be using which is to use a custom creator and ignore unknown properties. See the following example:
public class JacksonInheritance {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
Competence c = new Competence();
c.desc = "desc";
c.nome = "nome";
c.template = Att1.TEST_Att1;
String test = mapper.writeValueAsString(c);
System.out.println(test);
Competence readValue = mapper.readValue(test, Competence.class);
System.out.println(readValue.template);
}
#JsonIgnoreProperties(ignoreUnknown = true)
public static class Competence {
private static final Map<String, AttributeTemplate> templates;
static {
templates = new HashMap<>();
Stream.of(Att1.values()).forEach( a -> templates.put(a.name(), a));
Stream.of(Att2.values()).forEach( a -> templates.put(a.name(), a));
}
#JsonProperty
String nome;
#JsonProperty
String desc;
#JsonIgnore
AttributeTemplate template;
#JsonProperty("template_type")
public String getTempl() {
// Here you can do whichever way uou would like to serialise your template. This will be the key
return template.toString();
}
#JsonCreator
public static Competence create(#JsonProperty("template_type") String templateType) {
Competence c = new Competence();
c.template = templates.get(templateType);
return c;
}
}
public static interface AttributeTemplate {
}
public static enum Att1 implements AttributeTemplate {
TEST_Att1;
}
public static enum Att2 implements AttributeTemplate {
TEST2_Att2;
}
}
Here I am detaching the enum logic from the jackson logic and implement my own. This does not require a custom serialisation.
I basically say that I serialise my enum as its value (you can obviously choose which ever properties you would like for this).
My output json then looks as:
{"template_type":"TEST_Att1","nome":"nome","desc":"desc"}
At the return step I now know that the information I need to construct the correct enum template type from the template_type attribute. This is what I can inject into my factory method create.
In the create I can use my statically created map to populate the correct enum into my object. We can just create this map statically since our enums are finite and static.
The beauty of this is also that the generator is only used for creation. Using #JsonIgnoreProperties(ignoreUnknown = true), we can tell jackson to not freak out by all our custom elements in the json. It will simply deserialise any fields it can detect and leave the other ones (since we are using a custom template_type for our enum resolution).
Finally, I am ignoring the actual template in my bean because jackson won't be able to construct that.
I hope that this works for you/helps you. Sorry about the delay.
Reason for not using inheritance:
There seem to be issues with enum + inheritance in jackson. Particularly jackson by default uses reflection and calls the private constructor of the enum for generation. You may be able to get creators to work in a similar way as above though.
The deserialisation expects the template. I am going of the assumption that you do NOT necessarily want to serialise all elements of the enum. This is because the enum name, in my case TEST_Att1 makes the enum unique. There is no need to serialise and send all the different attributes these enums have around. However, Deserialization with #JsonSubTypes for no value - missing property error shows that jackson requires your template field to be at least present. This is a a slight issue, because you want to use an external property for this instead (so why include a null-field as suggested in your json just to make jackson happy)
This may not be the best solution, but I think it is relatively elegant given the restrictions. I hope that helps you,
Artur

Jackson enum Serializing and DeSerializer

I'm using JAVA 1.6 and Jackson 1.9.9 I've got an enum
public enum Event {
FORGOT_PASSWORD("forgot password");
private final String value;
private Event(final String description) {
this.value = description;
}
#JsonValue
final String value() {
return this.value;
}
}
I've added a #JsonValue, this seems to do the job it serializes the object into:
{"event":"forgot password"}
but when I try to deserialize I get a
Caused by: org.codehaus.jackson.map.JsonMappingException: Can not construct instance of com.globalrelay.gas.appsjson.authportal.Event from String value 'forgot password': value not one of declared Enum instance names
What am I missing here?

The serializer / deserializer solution pointed out by #xbakesx is an excellent one if you wish to completely decouple your enum class from its JSON representation.
Alternatively, if you prefer a self-contained solution, an implementation based on #JsonCreator and #JsonValue annotations would be more convenient.
So leveraging on the example by #Stanley the following is a complete self-contained solution (Java 6, Jackson 1.9):
public enum DeviceScheduleFormat {
Weekday,
EvenOdd,
Interval;
private static Map<String, DeviceScheduleFormat> namesMap = new HashMap<String, DeviceScheduleFormat>(3);
static {
namesMap.put("weekday", Weekday);
namesMap.put("even-odd", EvenOdd);
namesMap.put("interval", Interval);
}
#JsonCreator
public static DeviceScheduleFormat forValue(String value) {
return namesMap.get(StringUtils.lowerCase(value));
}
#JsonValue
public String toValue() {
for (Entry<String, DeviceScheduleFormat> entry : namesMap.entrySet()) {
if (entry.getValue() == this)
return entry.getKey();
}
return null; // or fail
}
}

Note that as of this commit in June 2015 (Jackson 2.6.2 and above) you can now simply write:
public enum Event {
#JsonProperty("forgot password")
FORGOT_PASSWORD;
}
The behavior is documented here: https://fasterxml.github.io/jackson-annotations/javadoc/2.11/com/fasterxml/jackson/annotation/JsonProperty.html
Starting with Jackson 2.6 this annotation may also be used to change serialization of Enum like so:
public enum MyEnum {
#JsonProperty("theFirstValue") THE_FIRST_VALUE,
#JsonProperty("another_value") ANOTHER_VALUE;
}
as an alternative to using JsonValue annotation.

You should create a static factory method which takes single argument and annotate it with #JsonCreator (available since Jackson 1.2)
#JsonCreator
public static Event forValue(String value) { ... }
Read more about JsonCreator annotation here.

Actual Answer:
The default deserializer for enums uses .name() to deserialize, so it's not using the #JsonValue. So as #OldCurmudgeon pointed out, you'd need to pass in {"event": "FORGOT_PASSWORD"} to match the .name() value.
An other option (assuming you want the write and read json values to be the same)...
More Info:
There is (yet) another way to manage the serialization and deserialization process with Jackson. You can specify these annotations to use your own custom serializer and deserializer:
#JsonSerialize(using = MySerializer.class)
#JsonDeserialize(using = MyDeserializer.class)
public final class MyClass {
...
}
Then you have to write MySerializer and MyDeserializer which look like this:
MySerializer
public final class MySerializer extends JsonSerializer<MyClass>
{
#Override
public void serialize(final MyClass yourClassHere, final JsonGenerator gen, final SerializerProvider serializer) throws IOException, JsonProcessingException
{
// here you'd write data to the stream with gen.write...() methods
}
}
MyDeserializer
public final class MyDeserializer extends org.codehaus.jackson.map.JsonDeserializer<MyClass>
{
#Override
public MyClass deserialize(final JsonParser parser, final DeserializationContext context) throws IOException, JsonProcessingException
{
// then you'd do something like parser.getInt() or whatever to pull data off the parser
return null;
}
}
Last little bit, particularly for doing this to an enum JsonEnum that serializes with the method getYourValue(), your serializer and deserializer might look like this:
public void serialize(final JsonEnum enumValue, final JsonGenerator gen, final SerializerProvider serializer) throws IOException, JsonProcessingException
{
gen.writeString(enumValue.getYourValue());
}
public JsonEnum deserialize(final JsonParser parser, final DeserializationContext context) throws IOException, JsonProcessingException
{
final String jsonValue = parser.getText();
for (final JsonEnum enumValue : JsonEnum.values())
{
if (enumValue.getYourValue().equals(jsonValue))
{
return enumValue;
}
}
return null;
}

I've found a very nice and concise solution, especially useful when you cannot modify enum classes as it was in my case. Then you should provide a custom ObjectMapper with a certain feature enabled. Those features are available since Jackson 1.6. So you only need to write toString() method in your enum.
public class CustomObjectMapper extends ObjectMapper {
#PostConstruct
public void customConfiguration() {
// Uses Enum.toString() for serialization of an Enum
this.enable(WRITE_ENUMS_USING_TO_STRING);
// Uses Enum.toString() for deserialization of an Enum
this.enable(READ_ENUMS_USING_TO_STRING);
}
}
There are more enum-related features available, see here:
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/wiki/Serialization-Features
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/wiki/Deserialization-Features

Try this.
public enum Event {
FORGOT_PASSWORD("forgot password");
private final String value;
private Event(final String description) {
this.value = description;
}
private Event() {
this.value = this.name();
}
#JsonValue
final String value() {
return this.value;
}
}

I like the accepted answer. However, I would improve it a little (considering that there is now Java higher than version 6 available).
Example:
public enum Operation {
EQUAL("eq"),
NOT_EQUAL("ne"),
LESS_THAN("lt"),
GREATER_THAN("gt");
private final String value;
Operation(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
#JsonValue
public String getValue() {
return value;
}
#JsonCreator
public static Operation forValue(String value) {
return Arrays.stream(Operation.values())
.filter(op -> op.getValue().equals(value))
.findFirst()
.orElseThrow(); // depending on requirements: can be .orElse(null);
}
}

You can customize the deserialization for any attribute.
Declare your deserialize class using the annotationJsonDeserialize (import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.annotation.JsonDeserialize) for the attribute that will be processed. If this is an Enum:
#JsonDeserialize(using = MyEnumDeserialize.class)
private MyEnum myEnum;
This way your class will be used to deserialize the attribute. This is a full example:
public class MyEnumDeserialize extends JsonDeserializer<MyEnum> {
#Override
public MyEnum deserialize(JsonParser jsonParser, DeserializationContext deserializationContext) throws IOException {
JsonNode node = jsonParser.getCodec().readTree(jsonParser);
MyEnum type = null;
try{
if(node.get("attr") != null){
type = MyEnum.get(Long.parseLong(node.get("attr").asText()));
if (type != null) {
return type;
}
}
}catch(Exception e){
type = null;
}
return type;
}
}

Here is another example that uses string values instead of a map.
public enum Operator {
EQUAL(new String[]{"=","==","==="}),
NOT_EQUAL(new String[]{"!=","<>"}),
LESS_THAN(new String[]{"<"}),
LESS_THAN_EQUAL(new String[]{"<="}),
GREATER_THAN(new String[]{">"}),
GREATER_THAN_EQUAL(new String[]{">="}),
EXISTS(new String[]{"not null", "exists"}),
NOT_EXISTS(new String[]{"is null", "not exists"}),
MATCH(new String[]{"match"});
private String[] value;
Operator(String[] value) {
this.value = value;
}
#JsonValue
public String toStringOperator(){
return value[0];
}
#JsonCreator
public static Operator fromStringOperator(String stringOperator) {
if(stringOperator != null) {
for(Operator operator : Operator.values()) {
for(String operatorString : operator.value) {
if (stringOperator.equalsIgnoreCase(operatorString)) {
return operator;
}
}
}
}
return null;
}
}

There are various approaches that you can take to accomplish deserialization of a JSON object to an enum. My favorite style is to make an inner class:
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonCreator;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonFormat;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonProperty;
import org.hibernate.validator.constraints.NotEmpty;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.function.Function;
import java.util.stream.Collectors;
import static com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonFormat.Shape.OBJECT;
#JsonFormat(shape = OBJECT)
public enum FinancialAccountSubAccountType {
MAIN("Main"),
MAIN_DISCOUNT("Main Discount");
private final static Map<String, FinancialAccountSubAccountType> ENUM_NAME_MAP;
static {
ENUM_NAME_MAP = Arrays.stream(FinancialAccountSubAccountType.values())
.collect(Collectors.toMap(
Enum::name,
Function.identity()));
}
private final String displayName;
FinancialAccountSubAccountType(String displayName) {
this.displayName = displayName;
}
#JsonCreator
public static FinancialAccountSubAccountType fromJson(Request request) {
return ENUM_NAME_MAP.get(request.getCode());
}
#JsonProperty("name")
public String getDisplayName() {
return displayName;
}
private static class Request {
#NotEmpty(message = "Financial account sub-account type code is required")
private final String code;
private final String displayName;
#JsonCreator
private Request(#JsonProperty("code") String code,
#JsonProperty("name") String displayName) {
this.code = code;
this.displayName = displayName;
}
public String getCode() {
return code;
}
#JsonProperty("name")
public String getDisplayName() {
return displayName;
}
}
}

In the context of an enum, using #JsonValue now (since 2.0) works for serialization and deserialization.
According to the jackson-annotations javadoc for #JsonValue:
NOTE: when use for Java enums, one additional feature is that value returned by annotated method is also considered to be the value to deserialize from, not just JSON String to serialize as. This is possible since set of Enum values is constant and it is possible to define mapping, but can not be done in general for POJO types; as such, this is not used for POJO deserialization.
So having the Event enum annotated just as above works (for both serialization and deserialization) with jackson 2.0+.

Besides using #JsonSerialize #JsonDeserialize, you can also use SerializationFeature and DeserializationFeature (jackson binding) in the object mapper.
Such as DeserializationFeature.READ_UNKNOWN_ENUM_VALUES_USING_DEFAULT_VALUE, which give default enum type if the one provided is not defined in the enum class.

In my case, this is what resolved:
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonCreator;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonFormat;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonProperty;
#JsonFormat(shape = JsonFormat.Shape.OBJECT)
public enum PeriodEnum {
DAILY(1),
WEEKLY(2),
;
private final int id;
PeriodEnum(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
public String getName() {
return this.name();
}
#JsonCreator
public static PeriodEnum fromJson(#JsonProperty("name") String name) {
return valueOf(name);
}
}
Serializes and deserializes the following json:
{
"id": 2,
"name": "WEEKLY"
}
I hope it helps!

#JsonFormat(shape = JsonFormat.Shape.OBJECT)
public enum LoginOptionType {
PHONE(1, "Phone"), MAIL(2, "mail"), PERSONAL_EMAIL(3, "Personal email");
private static List<LoginOptionType> all;
static {
all = new ArrayList<LoginOptionType>() {
{
add(LoginOptionType.PHONE);
add(LoginOptionType.MAIL);
add(LoginOptionType.PERSONAL_EMAIL);
}
};
}
private final Integer viewValue;
private final String name;
LoginOptionType(Integer viewValue, String name) {
this.viewValue = viewValue;
this.name = name;
}
public Integer getViewValue() {
return viewValue;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public static List<LoginOptionType> getAll() {
return all;
}
}
Response
[
{
"viewValue": 1,
"name": "Phone"
},
{
"viewValue": 2,
"name": "mail"
},
{
"viewValue": 3,
"name": "Personal email"
}
]

Here, 'value' acts as a deserialiser and 'namespace' acts as a serialiser. Hence, you can pass in value "Student Absent" to API while saving, and in DB it will be saved as "STUDENT_ABSENT". On the other hand, while retrieving data in your class, your API will return "Student Absent"
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonProperty;
public enum AttendanceEnums {
STUDENT_PRESENT,
#JsonProperty(value = "Student Absent", namespace = "Student Absent")
STUDENT_ABSENT;
}

I had been looking for a solution to enum serialization and I finally made a solution.
https://github.com/sirgilligan/EnumerationSerialization
https://digerati-illuminatus.blogspot.com/2022/10/java-enum-generic-serializer-and.html
It uses a new annotation and two new classes, EnumerationSerializer and EnumerationDeserializer. You can subclass the EnumerationDeserializer and make a class that sets the enum Class (typical approach) or you can annotate the enum and you don't have to have a subclass of EnumerationDeserializer.
#JsonSerialize(using = EnumerationSerializer.class)
#JsonDeserialize(using = EnumerationDeserializer.class)
#EnumJson(serializeProjection = Projection.NAME, deserializationClass = RGB.class)
enum RGB {
RED,
GREEN,
BLUE
}
Notice how the implementation of ContextualDeserializer pulls the class from the annotation.
https://github.com/sirgilligan/EnumerationSerialization/blob/main/src/main/java/org/example/EnumerationDeserializer.java
There is a lot of good code in this that might give insights.
For your specific question you could do this:
#JsonSerialize(using = EnumerationSerializer.class)
#JsonDeserialize(using = EnumerationDeserializer.class)
#EnumJson(serializeProjection = Projection.NAME, deserializationClass = Event.class)
public enum Event {
FORGOT_PASSWORD("forgot password");
//This annotation is optional because the code looks for value or alias.
#EnumJson(serializeProjection = Projection.VALUE)
private final String value;
private Event(final String description) {
this.value = description;
}
}
Or you could do this:
#JsonSerialize(using = EnumerationSerializer.class)
#JsonDeserialize(using = EnumerationDeserializer.class)
#EnumJson(serializeProjection = Projection.NAME, deserializationClass = Event.class)
public enum Event {
FORGOT_PASSWORD("forgot password");
private final String value;
private Event(final String description) {
this.value = description;
}
}
That's all you have to do.
Then if you have a class that "has a" event you can annotate each occurance to serialize the way you want.
class EventHolder {
#EnumJson(serializeProjection = Projection.NAME)
Event someEvent;
#EnumJson(serializeProjection = Projection.ORDINAL)
Event someOtherEvent;
#EnumJson(serializeProjection = Projection.VALUE)
Event yetAnotherEvent;
}

The simplest way I found is using #JsonFormat.Shape.OBJECT annotation for the enum.
#JsonFormat(shape = JsonFormat.Shape.OBJECT)
public enum MyEnum{
....
}

I did it like this :
// Your JSON
{"event":"forgot password"}
// Your class to map
public class LoggingDto {
#JsonProperty(value = "event")
private FooEnum logType;
}
//Your enum
public enum FooEnum {
DATA_LOG ("Dummy 1"),
DATA2_LOG ("Dummy 2"),
DATA3_LOG ("forgot password"),
DATA4_LOG ("Dummy 4"),
DATA5_LOG ("Dummy 5"),
UNKNOWN ("");
private String fullName;
FooEnum(String fullName) {
this.fullName = fullName;
}
public String getFullName() {
return fullName;
}
#JsonCreator
public static FooEnum getLogTypeFromFullName(String fullName) {
for (FooEnum logType : FooEnum.values()) {
if (logType.fullName.equals(fullName)) {
return logType;
}
}
return UNKNOWN;
}
}
So the value of the property "logType" for class LoggingDto will be DATA3_LOG

This post is old, but if it can help someone, use JsonFormat.Shape.STRING
#JsonFormat(shape = JsonFormat.Shape.STRING)
public enum SomeEnum{
#JsonProperty("SOME_PROPERTY")
someProperty,
...
}
Code results is like this
{"someenum":"SOME_PROPERTY"}

Develop Reference

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.

Usage of abstract class in the builder pattern? - java

Related

Unable to deserialize when using new Record classes

"Changing" complex immutable object

The method returns a superclass object with subclass fields

Jakson polymorphic Enum case

Jackson enum Serializing and DeSerializer

Categories

Resources