MarcusRiemer

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:

  1. 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 the only option 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])
    
  2. 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"
          }
        }
      }
    
    1. At first I was pleasently surprised to discover, that the keys: :atoms option did not turn the UUID that is part of the presences key 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.
    2. 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.
    3. The resulting map suddenly has the :__struct__ “visible” as part of my iex representation. So something about the map I recovered is not quite a “proper” struct.

This leaves me with the following questions:

  1. 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?
  2. What is different from a “proper” struct about the map I get from calling encode! and decode!?
  3. Should I just abandon the idea of serializing to JSON and “simply” write the binary representation into my PostgreSQL database?

Marked As Solved

Nicd

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

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.

16
Post #2
venkatd

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

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 :slight_smile:

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).

Last Post!

zachdaniel

zachdaniel

Creator of Ash

Easily, yes. You can use the :embedded data layer to model an Ash.Resource that behaves like an Ash.Type.

defmodule MyApp.Profile do
  use Ash.Resource, data_layer: :embedded

  attributes do
    attribute :bio, :string, allow_nil?: false
  end
end

# on `User` for example
attribute :profile, MyApp.Profile

The above has various interesting benefits like the ability to leverage policies, validations, custom actions on the resource to handle updating logic etc.

For simple map → struct validation, you can use the :struct type with the :fields constraint. I typically recommend using Ash.Type.NewType for this, which creates a new type based off of another type and constraints. For example:

defmodule MyApp.Profile do
  destruct [:bio]

  use Ash.Type.NewType, subtype_of: :struct, constraints: [
    instance_of: __MODULE__,
    fields: [
      bio: [type: :string, allow_nil?: false, constraints: [min_length: 25]]
    ]
  ]
end

You can use custom types as field types, etc, allowing for pretty much anything you could want to do.

Where Next?

Popular in Questions Top

openscript
Hello! Sorry for this astonishing simple question, but I’m really stuck. I try to set up the intellij-elixir plugin, but I don’t know ho...
New
joeerl
Hello again - after a longish gap I’ve decided I really must dig into Elixir and see what’s been happening here - so I have a few questio...
New
greenz1
I have a phoenix application from which a user can download multiple(5-6) files of size 1MB. I couldn’t find anything related to sending ...
New
9mm
I am constructing a JSON object (map) and I need to conditionally set a field. I’m trying to write proper elixir-way code… and I’m at a l...
New
alice
Hey, Just curious what are the main benefits of Elixir compared to Clojure? When is Elixir more useful than Clojure and vice versa? Th...
New
pmjoe
I have a relationship of love and hate with Elixir. Lots of things are just absolutely right, but there are some things that are kind of ...
New
albydarned
Hello all! I am typing this post from my new MacBook Pro with the M1 chip. I’m loving it so far, and will probably use it as my daily dr...
New

Other popular topics Top

Qqwy
Original source of discussion: This topic on the Pragmatic Programmers’ Functional Web Development with Elixir, OTP, and Phoenix forum. ...
New
hariharasudhan94
I would like to know what is the best IDE for elixir development?
New
jononomo
For some reason my phoenix channels are working for me in my local dev environment, but as soon as I deploy via Docker, I get a 403 error...
New
sorentwo
Hello! tl;dr Announcing Oban, an Ecto based job processing library with a focus on reliability and historical observability. After spen...
985 44778 311
New
AngeloChecked
What learn first? Rust or Elixir Hi Elixir community! I’m here because i want learn a new language. I’m a junior developer and mainly i ...
New
AstonJ
Posting this to see if we can make things easier for people to get into Neovim. If you use Neovim and have a favourite distro please let ...
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement