MarcusRiemer
(De)serializing JSON documents into Structs: Just include `__struct__`? Seemingly not quite
I have loads of structs defined via typed_struct and would like to serialize and deserialize these structs to and from JSON. I am currently using Jason, but I am not tied to that at all. Serializing any of my structs into JSON is simple, deriving Jason.Encoder works. An example structure that (hopefully) contains everything I need could look like this:
require Protocol
defmodule Example do
use TypedStruct
@type id :: Ecto.UUID.t()
typedstruct module: Presence do
field :joined_since, DateTime.t(), enforce: false
field :reason, String.t()
end
typedstruct enforce: true do
field :id, id
field :name, String.t()
field :presences, %{optional(Presence.id) => Presence.t()}
end
def build() do
%__MODULE__{
id: Ecto.UUID.generate(),
name: "Some Guest",
presences: %{
"#{Ecto.UUID.generate()}": %Presence{
joined_since: DateTime.utc_now,
reason: "Creation"
}
}
}
end
end
Protocol.derive(Jason.Encoder, Example)
Protocol.derive(Jason.Encoder, Example.Presence)
Implementing serialization and deserialization for this however comes with two problems:
-
By default I am losing the type when serializing as JSON: From my point of view the easiest thing would be to tag each JSON object with the type. As far as I understand it, this is also the way a “normal” map is differentiated from a struct: By having a
:__struct__field present in the map. If I could just serialize this field alongside the normal data, the resulting map would be properly treated as a struct. I am already using the:__struct__field to know on which module I want to call functions, so to me this seems like a natural thing to do. But it at least doesn’t seem to be encouraged by Jason: I didn’t stumble over any way of doing this except for repeating all keys as part of theonlyoption to the protocol or providing a manual implementation.Protocol.derive(Jason.Encoder, Example, only: [:__struct__, :id, :name, :presences]) Protocol.derive(Jason.Encoder, Example.Presence, only: [:__struct__, :id, :joined_since, :reason]) -
I do fear however that whatever I am doing is misguided. Because when serializing and deserializing such a struct (using the derived protocol from 1.) I made some observations:
iex(14)> Example.build |> Jason.encode!() |> Jason.decode!(keys: :atoms) %{ id: "21be5f01-eef1-4ff1-afd5-a09919a9f26f", name: "Some Guest", __struct__: "Elixir.Example", presences: %{ "bfa4f256-d1d9-416c-a08f-8a04e3b7cc06": %{ id: "b0e55b2f-1541-4987-8b99-b57563584558", reason: "Creation", __struct__: "Elixir.Example.Presence", joined_since: "2025-03-27T12:08:18.791171Z" } } }- At first I was pleasently surprised to discover, that the
keys: :atomsoption did not turn the UUID that is part of thepresenceskey into an atom. That saves me from a self-inflicted atom exhaustion I guess, but I don’t understand why the UUID wasn’t converted. - It however also didn’t “recover” the
DateTime, but left it as a string. I guess this is to be expected, as there is no “proper” JSON representation for date and time. - The resulting
mapsuddenly has the:__struct__“visible” as part of myiexrepresentation. So something about the map I recovered is not quite a “proper” struct.
- At first I was pleasently surprised to discover, that the
This leaves me with the following questions:
- What is a better way to tell Jason to include the
__struct__when serializing? So far I would probably write a manual implementation and re-use that. Or is there a reason I really should not do this? - What is different from a “proper” struct about the map I get from calling
encode!anddecode!? - Should I just abandon the idea of serializing to JSON and “simply” write the binary representation into my PostgreSQL database?
Marked As Solved
Nicd
The UUID key in your output is an atom. If it was a string, the syntax would be "bfa..." => %{ instead of "bfa...": %{. As you suspected, this is risky.
Your __struct__ key has been included in the JSON as a string, and thus retrieved back as a string. But the value in an Elixir struct is an atom (the module name). So your struct is broken and Elixir shows it as a regular map. Jason doesn’t support decoding data into structs so you’ll need to do that yourself.
I’d decode with Jason without supplying keys: :atoms (because it’s dangerous) and then look for some library to validate/transform the data forward from that point. I think Ecto can also be used for this but I don’t have experience with that.
Also Liked
LostKobrakai
Tbh instead of questioning json vs binary to term I’d question if it is a good idea to try to store structs – imo the answer is no.
Structs are a datatype whose lifetime is coupled to the code running. Each time code is changed the potential exists for a struct definition to have changed. Data stored in a db usually has a lifetime longer than that. Therefore you want to lower values to a simpler format and explicitly transform to and from those higher level values.
That transformation layer is is then the place you can use to upcast or downcast between distinct versions of a struct.
venkatd
I want to give a shoutout to the library Flint (GitHub - acalejos/flint: Declarative Ecto embedded schemas for data validation, coercion, and manipulation. · GitHub) which we have been using extensively in our app.
You can lean on Ecto to declare schemas and go to and from JSON.
garrison
I think this is the crux of the issue.
In order to rectify this you could create a simple mapping atom => module i.e. :my_struct => MyApp.Example.MyStruct and store a type: :my_struct in each JSON blob. That will at least save you if you ever need to rename your modules.
Then you could implement default values in your struct definitions when you add new fields for backwards compatibility. You could also drop fields which are no longer found in the struct. You could add type checking…
And of course by the time you are finished you will have reimplemented Ecto on top of JSON ![]()
There are two real, underlying problems here: first, Ecto has no polymorphic embeds (which is what you’re really trying to do with the structs). And second, relational databases fail to properly model polymorphic relations because foreign key references are too rigid (restricted to a single table).
For us, the former problem is probably easier to solve (though personally I am far more interested in the latter).
Popular in Questions
Other popular topics
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #deployment
- #library
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #channels
- #elixirconf
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #javascript
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #blog-post
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #ai
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #elixirconf-us
- #distillery
- #processes
- #forms
- #api
- #metaprogramming
- #security
- #performance








