Yes, but I was kinda hoping to do it myself. I’ve not been contributing as much as I’d like. Good work!
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:24 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James and guys, > > Is > > https://github.com/rmannibucau/johnzon/commit/23dfc58e301fb87bb72bc8bb4cdeb16d05666d4e > what you had in mind? > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > Le mar. 1 janv. 2019 à 22:16, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > Agree, we just nees to ensure to not expose more than today internals > > probably but i dont see any blockers :) > > > > Le mar. 1 janv. 2019 17:26, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> a > > écrit : > > > >> 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. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
