you could mayne write a custom Visitor that can sort the output, but that would basically involve buffering everything up and sorting before sending things downstream, so kind of the same thing. Except instead of going from 1 copy of the data to 2, it is going from 0 copies of the data to 1
basically every time the visitor sees an object, it buffers everything up as ujson.IndexedValues, sorts them, and then serializes them downstream
It now goes to the new implementation of
visitObject, and does this:
def visitKeyValue(s: Any): Unit = {
lastNested.visitValue(s.asInstanceOf[T], lastKeyIndex)
}lastNested, so it's now null... Should I not use this call, and/or use visitKey first?
that's basically what I do haha
I think if I take it through the jsonable visitor they should just work
Well, it's a problem for another day. I'll take the rest of this weekend off!
Thanks again :)
All the keys were e.g.
"id""
Anyway, I fixed that too by calling
.visitKey(-1) everywhere before .visitKeyValue... this seems to solve it :)
(isn't mutation awesome :p)
case class Thing(myFieldA: Int, myFieldB: String)
object Thing{
implicit val rw: RW[Thing] = macroRW
}
case class Big(i: Int, b: Boolean, str: String, c: Char, t: Thing)
object Big{
implicit val rw: RW[Big] = macroRW
}
object TestClient {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
read[Thing]("""{"myFieldA":1,"myFieldB":"gg"}""")
}
}
Then when I do, I get this error ```
no implicit argument of type upickle.legacy.Reader[Thing] was found for an implicit parameter of method read in trait Api.
I found: upickle.legacy.given_Reader_T[T](/* missing */summon[deriving.Mirror.Of[T]])
But no implicit values were found that match type deriving.Mirror.Of[T].
I recently ran my Scala json library performance benchmarks and noticed a significant slowdown in uPickle performance. See Results section at
https://github.com/objektwerks/scala3.json. The most recent test uses Scala 3 and uPickle 2.0.0. Has anyone else noticed this performance change?
Hello. Is it possible to create a custom Writer that would write out a trailing 0 on a Double that's a whole number? i.e 24.0, or in the more specific case I'm looking to use it in, 0.0. I've tried a couple ways but haven't had any success yet. Working in version 2.0.0 if that's important. Thanks!
@ghstrider You can't literally convert Var[List[T]] into List[Var[T]]... because the List size inside the Var can change over time, but List is immutable. Similar to how you can't convert scala.Future[List[T]] into List[scala.Future[T]].
If you have a Var[List[T]] and want to render a separate input for each T in the Var by giving it something like Var[T], you should use the split operator, something like:
val inputValues: L.Var[List[String]] = ???
div(
...,
children <-- inputValues.signal.map(_.zipWithIndex).split(_._2)((index, _, inputValue: Signal[T]) => {
input(
controlled(
value <-- inputValue,
onInput.mapToValue --> inputValues.updater( /* update string at index `index` here */)
)
)
})
)
If you understand
split, this should make sense, if not, check out the part in the video that explains it.
You could, however, keep a Var-like interface for each of the N parts by using derived vars, like so:
div(
...,
children <-- inputValues.signal.map(_.zipWithIndex).split(_._2)((index, _, inputValue: Signal[T]) => {
input(
onMountBind { ctx =>
val thisValueVar: Var[String] = inputValues.zoom(/* get value at index*/, /* get inputValues.now() but replace value at index*/)(ctx.owner)
controlled(
value <-- thisValueVar,
onInput.mapToValue --> thisValueVar
)
}
)
})
)However, it's kind of overkill in this case because you're discarding the inputValue signal that is already provided to you by the split operator, and rebuilding your own copy of it.