Well, ideally, the recursive one and the root one would use the same logic to map a JsonValue/JsonNumber -> Integer object, right? Perhaps we need to converge all this together and save ourselves some code.
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:19 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James > > I likely need test cases to understand more the issue but long story short > one of the two method is recursive not the other so one must handle > primitives as root types and the other aq nested type. Historically > primitives were not possible root types so can be something to refind. > > Happy to review Jira+pr to be more accurate if needed. > > Le mar. 1 janv. 2019 16:31, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> a > écrit : > > > I am looking at JOHNZON-177 and I have noticed that we seem to be mapping > > primitives inconsistently inside the same class. > > MappingParserImpl.toObject() and MappingParserImpl.readObject() both > > contain special logic for handling longs and ints. Why wouldn't we want > to > > handle these types consistently regardless of where they're used (fields > or > > the root type)? > > > > I have included code to handle the overflow/underflow case with a nice > > error message and that works fine when I added tests to the > > DefaultMappingTest from the JSON-B module. However, I found that > > MapperTest seems to already have similar tests for invalid long/int > > values. As I trace the logic, it doesn't hit my new code. > > >
