Serializer will now ignore: indexer properties, and properties with their name listed in a JsonIgnore above the declaring class

[icy3141]

Description

• Added JsonIgnoreAttribute class, which takes a single string parameter for it's constructor and stores an array of strings. The constructor parameter is expected to be separated by commas, but will tolerate spaces.
• Changed class serialization to check for JsonIgnoreAttribute, and skip properties that match the names listed in the attribute parameter.
• added to the logic for the serialization of classes, so that indexer properties will be passed over without attempting to serialize, and without throwing an error.

Motivation and Context

Increases flexibility for JSON-serializable objects. Before this change, it would have caused an error to serialize an object that defined an indexer property (this[index] operator overload). Also it doesn't appear there was any way to mark a class member NOT to be serialized.

• Regarding discussion in this discord thread: https://discord.com/channels/478725473862549535/1075368316941631488

How Has This Been Tested?

• I created a NFApp project where I declare a test class with a few properties and an indexer.
• I used the new attribute on the class. I initialized an instance of the class, and then serialized it.
• The serialized output successfully corresponded to the properties not listed in the attribute.
• I deserialized the string back into an object without incident.
  I am very new to github, so I am attaching my test project as a zip. I hope to learn the proper procedures for the future. I apologize for any inconvenience.
  EDIT: zip file replaced with screenshots of test code and link to project repo
  https://github.com/icy3141/JsonIgnoreTestProject/tree/main/JsonIgnoreTestProject

Screenshots

Types of changes

• Improvement (non-breaking change that improves a feature, code or algorithm)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue with code or algorithm)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality to code)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Config and build (change in the configuration and build system, has no impact on code or features)
• Dependencies (update dependencies and changes associated, has no impact on code or features)
• Unit Tests (add new Unit Test(s) or improved existing one(s), has no impact on code or features)
• Documentation (changes or updates in the documentation, has no impact on code or features)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project (only if there are changes in source code).
• My changes require an update to the documentation (there are changes that require the docs website to be updated).
• I have updated the documentation accordingly (the changes require an update on the docs in this repo).
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have tested everything locally and all new and existing tests passed (only if there are changes in source code).
• I have added new tests to cover my changes.

[dnfadmin]

All CLA requirements met.

[josesimoes]

@icy3141 can you please replace the ZIP with the actual images (in the PR initial comment)? ZIP files are a security risk and they are blocked on most corporate networks. And they require several other steps to actually get to see the images. 😉

[josesimoes]

Interesting approach. Thanks for proposing this.

This is a high impact library so the quality bar it's quite high here! 😉

1. Can you please add Unit Tests for this?
2. We need to access the performance impact on this. Can you please add the test to the benchmark project and have it run with and without the attribute to gauge the impact?

[Ellerbach]

Quick review and it's mainly about the form to fit with the rest of the style and specific point about performances.
Please add an option in the json where JsonIgnore can be configurable because checking every time the class will have a bad performance impact.
Also please cache the class ignore methods in the case the option is activated. So don't call the reflection all the time but only once.
And then just check if the function is part of the list or not.
And please add UnitsTest and also please run the performance tool before and after your changes so we can compare.

[Ellerbach]

For performance reasons, please add a new option in the sterilizer so you call this only if the ignore option is on. The cost is VERY high in terms of performances when this is calls every time.
Also, please cache this because as you place it on the class level, you should call it only once, not for every property.
By having those 2 things implemented, you can have a decent performance.
And please run the performance tool without your code and with your code, so we can compare.

[Ellerbach]

that should be cashed for a specific class

[Ellerbach]

Looks great to me now. So all up, as a summary, it seems we are good on performance side and you even managed to optimize a bit the existing code. Correct?

[Ellerbach]

please add an extra line between the functions, so one is missing before the attribute. Same in the next few functions. It helps for readibility.

[icy3141]

Sorry for more style errors. Even though I like organized code, I'm not used to checking that aspect quite so much. Plus it was a little messy from moving stuff around to get tests working. Will be better next time, don't want to waste your valuable time.

[josesimoes]

Nothing to apologize about! You're doing great! 👍🏻

[Ellerbach]

+1 on José remark, you're doing great! No worry, you should have seen my very first PR on a .NET repository :-D Now, with habit, it's easy to spot them. We've been added StyleCop linter on the IoT repository as it's where we do have the most contributions. Not yet into those classes one. That will slowly come but it's not urgent. And anyway, we won't put it in place in the tests as it doesn't make too much sense.
So all good! You'll be indeed much better next time and at some point like us being able to spot those :-D
It's really to make it easier to read the code and navigate.

[Ellerbach]

If you arrive here, then it's always successful. So no need to test the value of jsonSuccess

[icy3141]

Looks great to me now. So all up, as a summary, it seems we are good on performance side and you even managed to optimize a bit the existing code. Correct?

I think so, as long as my caching solution is acceptable. I will get to those last few fixes you suggested as soon as I can. The one thing I didn't do is run the performance tests with the code before I touched it. I can do that as well and provide my findings when I do my next push.

[Ellerbach]

note that you can as well add an error message in case it's not successful. So you know where it broke and maybe other values you want to track in the test result.

[Ellerbach]

same here, the value will always be false

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[torbacz]

One thing here:
For each property you are creating gettersToIgnore based on classAttributes. Which means doing the same work for each property (foreach loop -> ShouldSerializeMethod -> ShouldIgnorePropertyFromClassAttribute -> creating array). Faster approach should be creating ignored property array before foreach (MethodInfo method in methods).

BTW @josesimoes does nanoFramework support attributes on properties?

[josesimoes]

@torbacz there is nothing preventing you from decorating properties with attributes.
I guess that you want to know if you can reach custom attributes for properties. That's a different story: that is not supported.

[torbacz]

Yes, that was my question 😅 Because then we could just decorate each property. Also I'm not quite sure, if we should implement such solution. It's not resolving any problems. If you have class with properties which you don't want to send, just create derived class and pass it to JSON lib.
Don't get me wrong, I like new features but I'm concern about performance, adding new feature where there is a possibility for workaround is making lib much complicated over time.

[josesimoes]

Let's wait for the benchmark results and then decide.
I do share your concern. Impacting performance is something to avoid at all costs. Unless the trade-off it's relevant.

As a side comment: I keep being surprised on how much interest this library has gathered from the community! And the investments on improving it are also surprising to me. 😄

[torbacz]

I think we should compare benchmarks before and after adding new functionality. It's simple "if" condition, yet it may impact performance.

[josesimoes]

I think we should compare benchmarks before and after adding new functionality. It's simple "if" condition, yet it may impact performance.

Absolutely! I've asked for the benchmarks from the begging of this.
We have such a nice tool to produce those, so let's use it. 😉

[dotnet-policy-service]

@icy3141 please read the following Contributor License Agreement(CLA). If you agree with the CLA, please reply with the following information.

@dotnet-policy-service agree [company="{your company}"]

Options:

• (default - no company specified) I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.

@dotnet-policy-service agree

• (when company given) I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer. By signing below, the defined term “You” includes me and my employer.

@dotnet-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"

Contributor License Agreement

Contribution License Agreement

This Contribution License Agreement ( “Agreement” ) is agreed to by the party signing below ( “You” ),
and conveys certain license rights to the .NET Foundation ( “.NET Foundation” ) for Your contributions to
.NET Foundation open source projects. This Agreement is effective as of the latest signature date below.

1. Definitions.

“Code” means the computer software code, whether in human-readable or machine-executable form,
that is delivered by You to .NET Foundation under this Agreement.

“Project” means any of the projects owned or managed by .NET Foundation and offered under a license
approved by the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org).

“Submit” is the act of uploading, submitting, transmitting, or distributing code or other content to any
Project, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control
systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Project for the purpose of
discussing and improving that Project, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or
otherwise designated in writing by You as “Not a Submission.”

“Submission” means the Code and any other copyrightable material Submitted by You, including any
associated comments and documentation.

2. Your Submission. You must agree to the terms of this Agreement before making a Submission to any
Project. This Agreement covers any and all Submissions that You, now or in the future (except as
described in Section 4 below), Submit to any Project.

3. Originality of Work. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work.

Should You wish to Submit materials that are not Your original work, You may Submit them separately
to the Project if You (a) retain all copyright and license information that was in the materials as You
received them, (b) in the description accompanying Your Submission, include the phrase “Submission
containing materials of a third party:” followed by the names of the third party and any licenses or other
restrictions of which You are aware, and (c) follow any other instructions in the Project’s written

4. Your Employer. References to “employer” in this Agreement include Your employer or anyone else
for whom You are acting in making Your Submission, e.g. as a contractor, vendor, or agent. If Your
Submission is made in the course of Your work for an employer or Your employer has intellectual
property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable law, You must secure permission from Your
employer to make the Submission before signing this Agreement. In that case, the term “You” in this
Agreement will refer to You and the employer collectively. If You change employers in the future and
desire to Submit additional Submissions for the new employer, then You agree to sign a new Agreement
and secure permission from the new employer before Submitting those Submissions.

5. Licenses.

a. Copyright License. You grant .NET Foundation, and those who receive the Submission directly
or indirectly from .NET Foundation, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable

license in the Submission to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
and distribute the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing
rights to third parties.

b. Patent License. You grant .NET Foundation, and those who receive the Submission directly or
indirectly from .NET Foundation, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license
under Your patent claims that are necessarily infringed by the Submission or the combination of the
Submission with the Project to which it was Submitted to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell and
import or otherwise dispose of the Submission alone or with the Project.

c. Other Rights Reserved. Each party reserves all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
No additional licenses or rights whatsoever (including, without limitation, any implied licenses) are
granted by implication, exhaustion, estoppel or otherwise.

6. Representations and Warranties. You represent that You are legally entitled to grant the above
licenses. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work (except as You may
have disclosed under Section 3 ). You represent that You have secured permission from Your employer to
make the Submission in cases where Your Submission is made in the course of Your work for Your
employer or Your employer has intellectual property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable
law. If You are signing this Agreement on behalf of Your employer, You represent and warrant that You
have the necessary authority to bind the listed employer to the obligations contained in this Agreement.
You are not expected to provide support for Your Submission, unless You choose to do so. UNLESS
REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING, AND EXCEPT FOR THE WARRANTIES
EXPRESSLY STATED IN SECTIONS 3, 4, AND 6 , THE SUBMISSION PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS
PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTY OF
NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

7. Notice to .NET Foundation. You agree to notify .NET Foundation in writing of any facts or
circumstances of which You later become aware that would make Your representations in this
Agreement inaccurate in any respect.

8. Information about Submissions. You agree that contributions to Projects and information about
contributions may be maintained indefinitely and disclosed publicly, including Your name and other
information that You submit with Your Submission.

9. Governing Law/Jurisdiction. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and
the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the federal courts sitting in King County,
Washington, unless no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, in which case the parties consent to
exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the Superior Court of King County, Washington. The parties waive all
defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens.

10. Entire Agreement/Assignment. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties, and
supersedes any and all prior agreements, understandings or communications, written or oral, between
the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be assigned by .NET Foundation.

.NET Foundation dedicates this Contribution License Agreement to the public domain according to the Creative Commons CC0 1.

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[josesimoes]

@icy3141 any chance you can get this moving forward? If not, please let us know so one of the team members can pick it up.
Also please sign the CLA, otherwise we can't take your code.