Unordered fields not supported yet about chronicle-wire

[danielshaya]

You have typo here:

this.key = wire.read(() -> "ket").text();

Regards

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

public class WireModel implements Marshallable {

private long id;
private int revision;
private String key;

public WireModel(long id, int revision, String key) {
this.id = id;
this.revision = revision;
this.key = key;
}

@OverRide
public void readMarshallable(@NotNull WireIn wire) throws IllegalStateException {
this.id = wire.read(() -> "id").int64();
this.revision = wire.read(() -> "revision").int32();
this.key = wire.read(() -> "ket").text();
}

@OverRide
public void writeMarshallable(WireOut wire) {
wire
.write(() -> "id").int64(id)
.write(() -> "revision").int32(revision)
.write(() -> "key").text(key);
}

what an I doing wrong here?
keep getting same error regardless of read or write I tried.

testMultipleReads0 http://...WireModelTest: Unordered fields not
supported yet, Expected=id was: ''
testMultipleReads1 http://...WireModelTest: Unsupported type '3'

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15.

[gadieichhorn]

Thank you , good catch, but I am afraid this is still same error on the first field "id"

--- !!meta-data #binary
312313424
12
"1625d931-8220-4f5c-8bc1-1a11be5a8201"

--- !!meta-data
"id":312313424,"revision":,"key":"46fecdb7-96d2-4c97-8e9b-2cdb682f612e"

Tests run: 5, Failures: 1, Errors: 4, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.18 sec <<< FAILURE!
testMultipleReads0 Time elapsed: 0.159 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: Unordered fields not supported yet, Expected=id was: ''

here is my test class

    Bytes bytes = Bytes.elasticByteBuffer();
    Wire wire = wireType.apply(bytes);

    wire.writeDocument(true, model1);
    System.out.println(Wires.fromSizePrefixedBlobs(bytes));
    StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();

    WireModel results1 = new WireModel();
    wire.read(sb).marshallable(results1);
    assertEquals(model1.getId(), results1.getId());
    assertEquals(model1.getRevision(), results1.getRevision());
    assertEquals(model1.getKey(), results1.getKey());

[danielshaya]

A writeDocument should be matched by a readDocument:

Also note how in the code below I've used enums to avoid any possible typos
:)

Hope you find this useful.

package test;

import net.openhft.chronicle.bytes.Bytes;
import net.openhft.chronicle.wire.*;
import org.jetbrains.annotations.NotNull;

import java.util.function.Function;

import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;
import static test.WireModel.Values.*;

public class WireModel implements Marshallable {
enum Values implements WireKey {ID, REVISION, KEY}

private long id;
private int revision;
private String key;

public WireModel(){
}

public WireModel(long id, int revision, String key) {
    this.id = id;
    this.revision = revision;
    this.key = key;
}

@Override
public void readMarshallable(@NotNull WireIn wire) throws

IllegalStateException {
this.id = wire.read(ID).int64();
this.revision = wire.read(REVISION).int32();
this.key = wire.read(KEY).text();
}

@Override
public void writeMarshallable(WireOut wire) {
    wire.write(ID).int64(id)
        .write(REVISION).int32(revision)
        .write(KEY).text(key);
}

@Override
public String toString() {
    return "test.WireModel{" +
            "id=" + id +
            ", revision=" + revision +
            ", key='" + key + '\'' +
            '}';
}

public static void main(String[] args) {
    WireModel model1 = new WireModel(10, 9, "test");
    Function<Bytes, Wire> wireType = bytes -> new TextWire(bytes);

    Bytes bytes = Bytes.elasticByteBuffer();
    Wire wire = wireType.apply(bytes);

    wire.writeDocument(true, model1);
    System.out.println(Wires.fromSizePrefixedBlobs(bytes));


    WireModel results1 = new WireModel();
    wire.readDocument(results1, null);

    assertEquals(model1.toString(), results1.toString());
}

}

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

Thank you , good catch, but I am afraid this is still same error on the
first field "id"

--- !!meta-data #binary
312313424
12
"1625d931-8220-4f5c-8bc1-1a11be5a8201"

--- !!meta-data
"id":312313424,"revision":,"key":"46fecdb7-96d2-4c97-8e9b-2cdb682f612e"

Tests run: 5, Failures: 1, Errors: 4, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.18 sec
<<< FAILURE!
testMultipleReads0 http://wire.tests.WireModelTest Time elapsed: 0.159
sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: Unordered fields not supported
yet, Expected=id was: ''

here is my test class

Bytes bytes = Bytes.elasticByteBuffer();
Wire wire = wireType.apply(bytes);

wire.writeDocument(true, model1);
System.out.println(Wires.fromSizePrefixedBlobs(bytes));
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();

WireModel results1 = new WireModel();
wire.read(sb).marshallable(results1);
assertEquals(model1.getId(), results1.getId());
assertEquals(model1.getRevision(), results1.getRevision());
assertEquals(model1.getKey(), results1.getKey());

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[gadieichhorn]

Awesome! Your suggestion fixed it, good idea.
The only WireType that doesn't work is JSON but its not important for now.

[peter-lawrey]

The latest version of wire (from 1.3.x) should support unordered fields,
and in any case doesn't have this error message.

Peter.

On 12 February 2016 at 07:13, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

Awesome! Your suggestion fixed it, good idea.
The only WireType that doesn't work is JSON but its not important for now.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[danielshaya]

Not sure which version of Wire you're using but I can confirm that JSONWire
works on the latest snapshot.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

Awesome! Your suggestion fixed it, good idea.
The only WireType that doesn't work is JSON but its not important for now.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[gadieichhorn]

thank you both, I used 1.2.0. will upgrade and test again shortly.

I created this test project to help explore my options before using it, this is generic composition of objects, hope it can help someone else https://github.com/gadieichhorn/chronicle-wire-tests/blob/master/src/main/java/com/rds/chronicle/wire/tests/WireCollection.java

I struggle to find the way to wire nested collections and hashmaps like in this example.
from looking in the README or the tests libs I couldn't find any example that works for my case. Appreciate any help :)

[peter-lawrey]

Can you provide an example? Do you mean

Map<String, WiredType>

On 12 February 2016 at 11:43, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

thank you both, I used 1.2.0. will upgrade and test again shortly.

I created this test project to help explore my options before using it,
this is generic composition of objects, hope it can help someone else
https://github.com/gadieichhorn/chronicle-wire-tests/blob/master/src/main/java/com/rds/chronicle/wire/tests/WireCollection.java

I struggle to find the way to wire nested collections and hashmaps like in
this example.
from looking in the README or the tests libs I couldn't find any example
that works for my case. Appreciate any help :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[gadieichhorn]

Yes, please
List and HashMap

WireProperty & WireCollection are both Marshallable
WireCollection contain other nested Marshallable as below

private List<WireProperty> properties = new ArrayList<>();
private Map<String, WireCollection> collections = new HashMap<>();

The 1.3.2-snapshot will not compile. I will stay with 1.2.0 and use the read/write I used so far.

[peter-lawrey]

The release version is 1.3.4 and the next snapshot is 1.3.5-SNAPSHOT

http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cnet.openhft%7Cchronicle-wire%7C1.3.4%7Cbundle

You can use

properties = wireIn.read(() -> "properties").list(WireProperty.class);

collections = wireIn.read(() -> "collections").marshallableAsMap(
WireCollection.class);

I suspect your properties should be just a map.

On 12 February 2016 at 12:32, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

Yes, please
List and HashMap

WireProperty & WireCollection are both Marshallable
WireCollection contain other nested Marshallable as below

private List properties = new ArrayList<>();
private Map<String, WireCollection> collections = new HashMap<>();

The 1.3.2-snapshot will not compile. I will stay with 1.2.0 and use the
read/write I used so far.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[gadieichhorn]

Thank you, that works after the upgrade, I was missing the new methods.

Have a small issue with the WIreType.

 WireType.TEXT 
 WireType.BINARY

These are the only working WireTypes with the nested collections, it seemed to not get the right number of elements back or the map key is not correctly set to match the source.

The following compare the size of the return collection

    assertEquals(a.getCollections().size(), b.getCollections().size());
    assertEquals(a.getProperties().size(), b.getProperties().size());

This test check if the results contains the original elements (I use reference as key). I suspect some WireType implement a different map key and that is why it fails.

    a.getProperties().values().forEach(c -> {
        if (b.getProperties().containsKey(c.getReference())) {
            compareWireProperty(c, b.getProperties().get(c.getReference()));
        } else {
            Assert.fail("Cannot match property child element WireProperty");
        }
    });

if you like to see my tests you can have a look here. https://github.com/gadieichhorn/chronicle-wire-tests

[peter-lawrey]

Can you provide a unit test to replicate this? I suspect this has been
fixed in newer versions but it would be good to check.

On 12 February 2016 at 16:55, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

Thank you, that works after the upgrade, I was missing the new methods.

Have a small issue with the WIreType.

WireType.TEXT
WireType.BINARY

These are the only working WireTypes with the nested collections, it
seemed to not get the right number of elements back or the map key is not
correctly set to match the source.

The following compare the size of the return collection

assertEquals(a.getCollections().size(), b.getCollections().size());
assertEquals(a.getProperties().size(), b.getProperties().size());

This test check if the results contains the original elements (I use
reference as key). I suspect some WireType implement a different map key
and that is why it fails.

a.getProperties().values().forEach(c -> {
    if (b.getProperties().containsKey(c.getReference())) {
        compareWireProperty(c, b.getProperties().get(c.getReference()));
    } else {
        Assert.fail("Cannot match property child element WireProperty");
    }
});

if you like to see my tests you can have a look here.
https://github.com/gadieichhorn/chronicle-wire-tests

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[gadieichhorn]

I created a pull request.

Failed tests:
WireCollectionTest.testMultipleReads:59 Cannot match property child element WireProperty
WireCollectionTest.testMultipleReads:59 expected:<3> but was:<1>

let me know what you think.

On a different note:
If the collection is empty you still get an empty array in the wire. SO I created this check before to eliminate the extra empty collection writing

    if (properties.size() > 0) {
        wire.write(WireCollection.Values.PROPERTIES).marshallableAsMap(properties);
    }
    if (collections.size() > 0) {
        wire.write(WireCollection.Values.COLLECTIONS).marshallableAsMap(collections);
    }

in some cases the class name appears in the wire, I guess this is necessary in case there are polymorphic classes and the collection can have different specific types under the hood. ANy suggestions to clean this up?

 ][
    !net.openhft.chronicle.wire.reuse.WireCollection [
     8426082448332188729,
     !int -47647815,
     "2c791eb9-753b-4c72-ad23-63bdf66ae3f4",
      reference3,
     "@:3",
    name3[

Thanks again for your support.

[peter-lawrey]

Hello Gabi,
Thank you for the unit test. I was able to find the bug quite quickly
(and have committed a fix)

The output for numbered fields now looks like.

--- !!meta-data #binary
"0": 234234234
"1": 23
"8": "38432228-f85c-4a43-9499-c5636c94de3d"
"4": reference
"5": @
"6": name
"2": [
reference7: !WireProperty [
"0": -2473783008384263129,
"1": 996207328,
"8": "2fa10878-f87d-4a6a-9378-2d7899acfaaf",
"4": reference7,
"5": "@:7",
"6": name7,
"7": "7567ca01b7b7435b80cba2b25c54180d"
]
reference8: !WireProperty [
"0": 7813252551544261374,
"1": !int -1455156808,
"8": b04cd400-9266-4cb5-9a59-f1512366f8c9,
"4": reference8,
"5": "@:8",
"6": name8,
"7": aa362e2e3ff346a7b0a7c45c6eb89133
]
reference9: !WireProperty [
"0": -4078949010835680613,
"1": 241021037,
"8": "74933db6-adbe-4d96-8734-230e64724fb6",
"4": reference9,
"5": "@:9",
"6": name9,
"7": cb0f73f2da2e450fa10db4d138075269
]
reference3: !WireProperty [
"0": -3447705347187420950,
"1": !int -243598213,
"8": d4750faa-dbb8-4e2b-bc73-470e295ac1aa,
"4": reference3,
"5": "@:3",
"6": name3,
"7": fd460c7c0ccf44cea8c22a791a52de1e
]
reference4: !WireProperty [
"0": 8493808251427423191,
"1": 648409363,
"8": "08db865f-95ff-4e76-872f-9af001ef593e",
"4": reference4,
"5": "@:4",
"6": name4,
"7": "1afd8d5f88dc4b57b7ff45bdc52dd3cd"
]
reference5: !WireProperty [
"0": -1958360471934516811,
"1": !int -1847639601,
"8": "50af4f11-cd86-4d66-baf5-bce083646182",
"4": reference5,
"5": "@:5",
"6": name5,
"7": "520f02f33c0a464d9fd9de4a0789cd12"
]
reference6: !WireProperty [
"0": 2956160254387511097,
"1": !int -325989312,
"8": d78f6930-badb-4d44-9a9e-76e0b7f0014d,
"4": reference6,
"5": "@:6",
"6": name6,
"7": f53821258f9f4236a0a92255d9bca8b2
]
reference1: !WireProperty [
"0": 1920184879057585000,
"1": 672916719,
"8": "1afca66b-0c43-4ea5-8d7e-f3a106129846",
"4": reference1,
"5": "@:1",
"6": name1,
"7": ea7673d93830443bb3ee08d03bb09d51
]
reference2: !WireProperty [
"0": 3685197974110234027,
"1": 1708461762,
"8": "03838103-e0cb-4ead-b8b6-980f5110a418",
"4": reference2,
"5": "@:2",
"6": name2,
"7": "6596e4da49584a4eae2cb21eec248b9d"
]
]

The output for named fields now looks like

--- !!meta-data
id: 234234234
revision: 23
key: "20617f19-1781-4f40-98c9-61ffa5dba21e"
reference: reference
path: @
name: name
properties: {
reference7: !WireProperty { id: 9020901677846458544, revision: 679950018,
key: "6c606d4e-71a9-4b17-8523-1dcb9c088d23", reference: reference7, path:
"@:7", name: name7, value: "63f20cbc33f0481b8234930d69a09520" },
reference8: !WireProperty { id: -6735319603169159958, revision:
862355910, key: "3fe7ad73-7f8a-45b6-af4e-435bc8fd0b1d", reference:
reference8, path: "@:8", name: name8, value:
"2afe3c88364041c8acaa56f4b35bc53b" },
reference9: !WireProperty { id: 2239969738209127675, revision:
-279215100, key: "7fae7281-7c18-4487-a2f5-4e3499f525ae", reference:
reference9, path: "@:9", name: name9, value:
"554fcb098c024e2da135186bea0a5ba3" },
reference3: !WireProperty { id: 8390695552422707165, revision:
-147514553, key: "926e552c-e395-4c2f-80e6-5d6de1f84b7b", reference:
reference3, path: "@:3", name: name3, value:
a4da0ad3ed684003949e971fa8699d27 },
reference4: !WireProperty { id: -978531391916948535, revision: 524865454,
key: dd8d9eef-ce7d-4423-a781-06605e37b011, reference: reference4, path:
"@:4", name: name4, value: bec03d70d0e6482e81b7bb0e357f3d92 },
reference5: !WireProperty { id: 3374944958029627633, revision:
-398086406, key: "0a1e056e-e6e7-4e11-b303-c293c6fdf5f3", reference:
reference5, path: "@:5", name: name5, value:
"69813084c39d4936b69b0dde0f0c0ed5" },
reference6: !WireProperty { id: -8433021096891598682, revision:
-736117722, key: "776461da-264a-4827-aeea-3a4d2ef5a8ba", reference:
reference6, path: "@:6", name: name6, value:
"3367fa70b0e14aed80abc5172414134c" },
reference1: !WireProperty { id: -142490954081820345, revision:
-318848728, key: "2205a065-a732-40c1-a635-b421f8f8cba6", reference:
reference1, path: "@:1", name: name1, value:
"6fafe5346ddc4ec18d80f45104332eac" },
reference2: !WireProperty { id: 2991033472590306421, revision:
1566613018, key: d8f3385b-c268-4d0c-88bd-d9883ca31ab4, reference:
reference2, path: "@:2", name: name2, value:
"74641a3b78b64837a67433a30b40016f" }
}

the output for field less now looks like, this is the most difficult to
read as it has the least information. If you wanted to make it readable,
you would parse the data, and print the parsed data (note I added a
toString()) method for you.

--- !!meta-data #binary
234234234
23
f4a93b1e-9c86-4fc3-8c8e-529a034a506e
reference
@
name
[
reference7: !WireProperty [
115906392025424068,
154486320,
"22711f61-923c-41fc-92b3-0e2ca5c3f6a8",
reference7,
"@:7",
name7,
"6c63fa3a28894b0ca770af1688ad8fb6"
]
reference8: !WireProperty [
6431574489447352160,
1976658183,
"6d23c6dd-91b8-4c8c-bcca-4516c4b42313",
reference8,
"@:8",
name8,
a68645912c6f4556afebaa1c1a9c8572
]
reference9: !WireProperty [
3357362923123882492,
!int -731973258,
a7d80411-8184-4e6e-80eb-a494ffb39b7e,
reference9,
"@:9",
name9,
"792d1edb686041e397246862887b331f"
]
reference3: !WireProperty [
7741702624161412808,
!int -1298385948,
"324e6e71-aa05-4871-b0ba-d70d931e2ea6",
reference3,
"@:3",
name3,
d7b7bb14f1e6438585c2ea9118c9ce6f
]

On 13 February 2016 at 03:32, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

I created a pull request.

Failed tests:
WireCollectionTest.testMultipleReads:59 Cannot match property child
element WireProperty
WireCollectionTest.testMultipleReads:59 expected:<3> but was:<1>

let me know what you think.

On a different note:
If the collection is empty you still get an empty array in the wire. SO I
created this check before to eliminate the extra empty collection writing

if (properties.size() > 0) {
    wire.write(WireCollection.Values.PROPERTIES).marshallableAsMap(properties);
}
if (collections.size() > 0) {
    wire.write(WireCollection.Values.COLLECTIONS).marshallableAsMap(collections);
}

in some cases the class name appears in the wire, I guess this is
necessary in case there are polymorphic classes and the collection can have
different specific types under the hood. ANy suggestions to clean this up?

][
!net.openhft.chronicle.wire.reuse.WireCollection [
8426082448332188729,
!int -47647815,
"2c791eb9-753b-4c72-ad23-63bdf66ae3f4",
reference3,
"@:3",
name3[

Thanks again for your support.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[peter-lawrey]

To add toString, equals, hashCode you just need to add the following
methods and as long as the writeMarshallable methods are up to date, this
will be correct.

@OverRide
public int hashCode() {
return HashWire.hash32(this);
}

@OverRide
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
return obj instanceof WriteMarshallable &&
obj.toString().equals(toString());
}

@OverRide
public String toString() {
return WireType.TEXT.asString(this);
}

On 13 February 2016 at 08:24, Peter Lawrey [email protected]
wrote:

Hello Gabi,
Thank you for the unit test. I was able to find the bug quite quickly
(and have committed a fix)

The output for numbered fields now looks like.

--- !!meta-data #binary
"0": 234234234
"1": 23
"8": "38432228-f85c-4a43-9499-c5636c94de3d"
"4": reference
"5": @
"6": name
"2": [
reference7: !WireProperty [
"0": -2473783008384263129,
"1": 996207328,
"8": "2fa10878-f87d-4a6a-9378-2d7899acfaaf",
"4": reference7,
"5": "@:7",
"6": name7,
"7": "7567ca01b7b7435b80cba2b25c54180d"
]
reference8: !WireProperty [
"0": 7813252551544261374,
"1": !int -1455156808,
"8": b04cd400-9266-4cb5-9a59-f1512366f8c9,
"4": reference8,
"5": "@:8",
"6": name8,
"7": aa362e2e3ff346a7b0a7c45c6eb89133
]
reference9: !WireProperty [
"0": -4078949010835680613,
"1": 241021037,
"8": "74933db6-adbe-4d96-8734-230e64724fb6",
"4": reference9,
"5": "@:9",
"6": name9,
"7": cb0f73f2da2e450fa10db4d138075269
]
reference3: !WireProperty [
"0": -3447705347187420950,
"1": !int -243598213,
"8": d4750faa-dbb8-4e2b-bc73-470e295ac1aa,
"4": reference3,
"5": "@:3",
"6": name3,
"7": fd460c7c0ccf44cea8c22a791a52de1e
]
reference4: !WireProperty [
"0": 8493808251427423191,
"1": 648409363,
"8": "08db865f-95ff-4e76-872f-9af001ef593e",
"4": reference4,
"5": "@:4",
"6": name4,
"7": "1afd8d5f88dc4b57b7ff45bdc52dd3cd"
]
reference5: !WireProperty [
"0": -1958360471934516811,
"1": !int -1847639601,
"8": "50af4f11-cd86-4d66-baf5-bce083646182",
"4": reference5,
"5": "@:5",
"6": name5,
"7": "520f02f33c0a464d9fd9de4a0789cd12"
]
reference6: !WireProperty [
"0": 2956160254387511097,
"1": !int -325989312,
"8": d78f6930-badb-4d44-9a9e-76e0b7f0014d,
"4": reference6,
"5": "@:6",
"6": name6,
"7": f53821258f9f4236a0a92255d9bca8b2
]
reference1: !WireProperty [
"0": 1920184879057585000,
"1": 672916719,
"8": "1afca66b-0c43-4ea5-8d7e-f3a106129846",
"4": reference1,
"5": "@:1",
"6": name1,
"7": ea7673d93830443bb3ee08d03bb09d51
]
reference2: !WireProperty [
"0": 3685197974110234027,
"1": 1708461762,
"8": "03838103-e0cb-4ead-b8b6-980f5110a418",
"4": reference2,
"5": "@:2",
"6": name2,
"7": "6596e4da49584a4eae2cb21eec248b9d"
]
]

The output for named fields now looks like

--- !!meta-data
id: 234234234
revision: 23
key: "20617f19-1781-4f40-98c9-61ffa5dba21e"
reference: reference
path: @
name: name
properties: {
reference7: !WireProperty { id: 9020901677846458544, revision:
679950018, key: "6c606d4e-71a9-4b17-8523-1dcb9c088d23", reference:
reference7, path: "@:7", name: name7, value:
"63f20cbc33f0481b8234930d69a09520" },
reference8: !WireProperty { id: -6735319603169159958, revision:
862355910, key: "3fe7ad73-7f8a-45b6-af4e-435bc8fd0b1d", reference:
reference8, path: "@:8", name: name8, value:
"2afe3c88364041c8acaa56f4b35bc53b" },
reference9: !WireProperty { id: 2239969738209127675, revision:
-279215100, key: "7fae7281-7c18-4487-a2f5-4e3499f525ae", reference:
reference9, path: "@:9", name: name9, value:
"554fcb098c024e2da135186bea0a5ba3" },
reference3: !WireProperty { id: 8390695552422707165, revision:
-147514553, key: "926e552c-e395-4c2f-80e6-5d6de1f84b7b", reference:
reference3, path: "@:3", name: name3, value:
a4da0ad3ed684003949e971fa8699d27 },
reference4: !WireProperty { id: -978531391916948535, revision:
524865454, key: dd8d9eef-ce7d-4423-a781-06605e37b011, reference:
reference4, path: "@:4", name: name4, value:
bec03d70d0e6482e81b7bb0e357f3d92 },
reference5: !WireProperty { id: 3374944958029627633, revision:
-398086406, key: "0a1e056e-e6e7-4e11-b303-c293c6fdf5f3", reference:
reference5, path: "@:5", name: name5, value:
"69813084c39d4936b69b0dde0f0c0ed5" },
reference6: !WireProperty { id: -8433021096891598682, revision:
-736117722, key: "776461da-264a-4827-aeea-3a4d2ef5a8ba", reference:
reference6, path: "@:6", name: name6, value:
"3367fa70b0e14aed80abc5172414134c" },
reference1: !WireProperty { id: -142490954081820345, revision:
-318848728, key: "2205a065-a732-40c1-a635-b421f8f8cba6", reference:
reference1, path: "@:1", name: name1, value:
"6fafe5346ddc4ec18d80f45104332eac" },
reference2: !WireProperty { id: 2991033472590306421, revision:
1566613018, key: d8f3385b-c268-4d0c-88bd-d9883ca31ab4, reference:
reference2, path: "@:2", name: name2, value:
"74641a3b78b64837a67433a30b40016f" }
}

the output for field less now looks like, this is the most difficult to
read as it has the least information. If you wanted to make it readable,
you would parse the data, and print the parsed data (note I added a
toString()) method for you.

--- !!meta-data #binary
234234234
23
f4a93b1e-9c86-4fc3-8c8e-529a034a506e
reference
@
name
[
reference7: !WireProperty [
115906392025424068,
154486320,
"22711f61-923c-41fc-92b3-0e2ca5c3f6a8",
reference7,
"@:7",
name7,
"6c63fa3a28894b0ca770af1688ad8fb6"
]
reference8: !WireProperty [
6431574489447352160,
1976658183,
"6d23c6dd-91b8-4c8c-bcca-4516c4b42313",
reference8,
"@:8",
name8,
a68645912c6f4556afebaa1c1a9c8572
]
reference9: !WireProperty [
3357362923123882492,
!int -731973258,
a7d80411-8184-4e6e-80eb-a494ffb39b7e,
reference9,
"@:9",
name9,
"792d1edb686041e397246862887b331f"
]
reference3: !WireProperty [
7741702624161412808,
!int -1298385948,
"324e6e71-aa05-4871-b0ba-d70d931e2ea6",
reference3,
"@:3",
name3,
d7b7bb14f1e6438585c2ea9118c9ce6f
]

On 13 February 2016 at 03:32, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

I created a pull request.

Failed tests:
WireCollectionTest.testMultipleReads:59 Cannot match property child
element WireProperty
WireCollectionTest.testMultipleReads:59 expected:<3> but was:<1>

let me know what you think.

On a different note:
If the collection is empty you still get an empty array in the wire. SO I
created this check before to eliminate the extra empty collection writing

if (properties.size() > 0) {
    wire.write(WireCollection.Values.PROPERTIES).marshallableAsMap(properties);
}
if (collections.size() > 0) {
    wire.write(WireCollection.Values.COLLECTIONS).marshallableAsMap(collections);
}

in some cases the class name appears in the wire, I guess this is
necessary in case there are polymorphic classes and the collection can have
different specific types under the hood. ANy suggestions to clean this up?

][
!net.openhft.chronicle.wire.reuse.WireCollection [
8426082448332188729,
!int -47647815,
"2c791eb9-753b-4c72-ad23-63bdf66ae3f4",
reference3,
"@:3",
name3[

Thanks again for your support.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[peter-lawrey]

The toString for the random WireCollection now looks like

id: 234234234
revision: 23
key: "6cbb88a5-b24c-4144-87ca-df1dc05faf58"
reference: reference
path: @
name: name
properties: {
reference7: { id: -1378134787947258651, revision: -860625809, key:
"231f4fff-c6ec-4e41-a375-e6096a9c1f62", reference: reference7, path: "@:7",
name: name7, value: "8360f68ecf474b3bb017aff65d10b0ae" },
reference8: { id: 3796602193238203700, revision: -1117270406, key:
ae5fff3a-cde9-42a2-8f13-381e080b3e94, reference: reference8, path: "@:8",
name: name8, value: cff987dcfe2548729a3f49c9571f51c7 },
reference9: { id: 4093892018757645835, revision: 1300709420, key:
"348d8b5c-8cca-4d4c-a87f-ef614ada31d7", reference: reference9, path: "@:9",
name: name9, value: "8afcdd9a08d9417ab3940790efb8fedf" },
reference3: { id: 3703192364200711998, revision: 824693184, key:
"05b6d19f-bdec-40ea-93ac-f9a32cc4cd23", reference: reference3, path: "@:3",
name: name3, value: "18bc49f502e14457b7f00638c011f813" },
reference4: { id: 7633232404783378963, revision: -1014084408, key:
"5894cd04-44d4-4f8d-9156-992ef60e99b3", reference: reference4, path: "@:4",
name: name4, value: c869fe39952a4c01be2aff1d3a2d7593 },
reference5: { id: -654517402135093390, revision: 1275967644, key:
"3b50718a-9af5-4ab7-98cb-c3dd858bb3d9", reference: reference5, path: "@:5",
name: name5, value: e736ac9afef94efbae2aed1da23a5b02 },
reference6: { id: -1663295654902626957, revision: 279328039, key:
"3bf89d95-d76f-4df6-bf81-a33fbe833e2d", reference: reference6, path: "@:6",
name: name6, value: "1d8c43b9c9a54fa3b1f27005a73c5ba0" },
reference1: { id: 329865317752132836, revision: -1200820035, key:
abc116a7-04a2-40d0-b89a-65a334c1c18c, reference: reference1, path: "@:1",
name: name1, value: d0338c4a6b4b4b1b90bc0d94c446bf83 },
reference2: { id: 113453255235637683, revision: 84305237, key:
"4e83a8c7-c799-4aae-8930-ee0389ea8bce", reference: reference2, path: "@:2",
name: name2, value: b2e2c6ce061546c2bd4d18183dec29c4 }
}
collections: {
reference3: {
id: 3845722779839431780,
revision: -412869519,
key: "710e32ba-13a4-4943-b83d-a82dcf24e99e",
reference: reference3,
path: "@:3",
name: name3,
properties: {
reference3: { id: -8291590071434083652, revision: 1845562311, key:
"96911884-024b-43a7-a446-10bc6e9e991d", reference: reference3, path:
"@:3-3", name: name3, value: "0ce9e850c9de49338255530416e8413c" },
reference1: { id: -4212377675553044477, revision: 365285698, key:
de9ad2bf-176c-441d-9938-33581c69f326, reference: reference1, path: "@:3-1",
name: name1, value: "5c01ce52ac384be6962c9095e6fd068b" },
reference2: { id: 1799532890313653854, revision: -96717494, key:
"0b560e1e-157c-4dd9-ab71-b2567b15d5e5", reference: reference2, path:
"@:3-2", name: name2, value: "3496afa0745540eeba578aa190bfde8e" }
}
},
reference1: {
id: 6891895605267261644,
revision: -1170165399,
key: "6922eab3-604a-478d-9c96-9cf49ca8100b",
reference: reference1,
path: "@:1",
name: name1,
properties: {
reference3: { id: -344787303413512347, revision: 699991691, key:
"2d8bcb29-d94e-4d4c-a363-e05ce852d5b8", reference: reference3, path:
"@:1-3", name: name3, value: b1408862ad62413c855c1421210a1d22 },
reference1: { id: -2453672433290944896, revision: 1589198342, key:
"387ec1ce-cbc9-429c-a502-30934a6a92a8", reference: reference1, path:
"@:1-1", name: name1, value: df5d7116fc1e454d84089c95ed447a4f },
reference2: { id: 3870629044623399982, revision: 1735308014, key:
ce383d21-8155-4200-b268-e9c8eae067be, reference: reference2, path: "@:1-2",
name: name2, value: "4278c4a72b944d6e9231741a67af2c02" }
}
},
reference2: {
id: 5049260818097187356,
revision: 176543070,
key: "2751f943-c4e3-4f82-b500-f9e9471c217a",
reference: reference2,
path: "@:2",
name: name2,
properties: {
reference3: { id: -691621033846215588, revision: -452178485, key:
a25ed756-cd3d-4f43-ba92-a7d8dfb25df2, reference: reference3, path: "@:2-3",
name: name3, value: "50c4992b85614757a8ea18eca8b038ee" },
reference1: { id: -5444529600601341973, revision: -1827346947, key:
afbb71c1-1a9b-4b9e-b0c1-b878d5a0494c, reference: reference1, path: "@:2-1",
name: name1, value: c453e796b6cc47c5b6201c1dbc97764f },
reference2: { id: -6573994050202780983, revision: -754379721, key:
"99f6edff-dc5d-49a9-afef-51e72dd9dafc", reference: reference2, path:
"@:2-2", name: name2, value: e1b821a030a6497883a18fd0f6e4694f }
}
}
}

On 13 February 2016 at 08:28, Peter Lawrey [email protected]
wrote:

To add toString, equals, hashCode you just need to add the following
methods and as long as the writeMarshallable methods are up to date, this
will be correct.

@OverRide
public int hashCode() {
return HashWire.hash32(this);
}

@OverRide
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
return obj instanceof WriteMarshallable &&
obj.toString().equals(toString());
}

@OverRide
public String toString() {
return WireType.TEXT.asString(this);
}

On 13 February 2016 at 08:24, Peter Lawrey <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Gabi,
Thank you for the unit test. I was able to find the bug quite quickly
(and have committed a fix)

The output for numbered fields now looks like.

--- !!meta-data #binary
"0": 234234234
"1": 23
"8": "38432228-f85c-4a43-9499-c5636c94de3d"
"4": reference
"5": @
"6": name
"2": [
reference7: !WireProperty [
"0": -2473783008384263129,
"1": 996207328,
"8": "2fa10878-f87d-4a6a-9378-2d7899acfaaf",
"4": reference7,
"5": "@:7",
"6": name7,
"7": "7567ca01b7b7435b80cba2b25c54180d"
]
reference8: !WireProperty [
"0": 7813252551544261374,
"1": !int -1455156808,
"8": b04cd400-9266-4cb5-9a59-f1512366f8c9,
"4": reference8,
"5": "@:8",
"6": name8,
"7": aa362e2e3ff346a7b0a7c45c6eb89133
]
reference9: !WireProperty [
"0": -4078949010835680613,
"1": 241021037,
"8": "74933db6-adbe-4d96-8734-230e64724fb6",
"4": reference9,
"5": "@:9",
"6": name9,
"7": cb0f73f2da2e450fa10db4d138075269
]
reference3: !WireProperty [
"0": -3447705347187420950,
"1": !int -243598213,
"8": d4750faa-dbb8-4e2b-bc73-470e295ac1aa,
"4": reference3,
"5": "@:3",
"6": name3,
"7": fd460c7c0ccf44cea8c22a791a52de1e
]
reference4: !WireProperty [
"0": 8493808251427423191,
"1": 648409363,
"8": "08db865f-95ff-4e76-872f-9af001ef593e",
"4": reference4,
"5": "@:4",
"6": name4,
"7": "1afd8d5f88dc4b57b7ff45bdc52dd3cd"
]
reference5: !WireProperty [
"0": -1958360471934516811,
"1": !int -1847639601,
"8": "50af4f11-cd86-4d66-baf5-bce083646182",
"4": reference5,
"5": "@:5",
"6": name5,
"7": "520f02f33c0a464d9fd9de4a0789cd12"
]
reference6: !WireProperty [
"0": 2956160254387511097,
"1": !int -325989312,
"8": d78f6930-badb-4d44-9a9e-76e0b7f0014d,
"4": reference6,
"5": "@:6",
"6": name6,
"7": f53821258f9f4236a0a92255d9bca8b2
]
reference1: !WireProperty [
"0": 1920184879057585000,
"1": 672916719,
"8": "1afca66b-0c43-4ea5-8d7e-f3a106129846",
"4": reference1,
"5": "@:1",
"6": name1,
"7": ea7673d93830443bb3ee08d03bb09d51
]
reference2: !WireProperty [
"0": 3685197974110234027,
"1": 1708461762,
"8": "03838103-e0cb-4ead-b8b6-980f5110a418",
"4": reference2,
"5": "@:2",
"6": name2,
"7": "6596e4da49584a4eae2cb21eec248b9d"
]
]

The output for named fields now looks like

--- !!meta-data
id: 234234234
revision: 23
key: "20617f19-1781-4f40-98c9-61ffa5dba21e"
reference: reference
path: @
name: name
properties: {
reference7: !WireProperty { id: 9020901677846458544, revision:
679950018, key: "6c606d4e-71a9-4b17-8523-1dcb9c088d23", reference:
reference7, path: "@:7", name: name7, value:
"63f20cbc33f0481b8234930d69a09520" },
reference8: !WireProperty { id: -6735319603169159958, revision:
862355910, key: "3fe7ad73-7f8a-45b6-af4e-435bc8fd0b1d", reference:
reference8, path: "@:8", name: name8, value:
"2afe3c88364041c8acaa56f4b35bc53b" },
reference9: !WireProperty { id: 2239969738209127675, revision:
-279215100, key: "7fae7281-7c18-4487-a2f5-4e3499f525ae", reference:
reference9, path: "@:9", name: name9, value:
"554fcb098c024e2da135186bea0a5ba3" },
reference3: !WireProperty { id: 8390695552422707165, revision:
-147514553, key: "926e552c-e395-4c2f-80e6-5d6de1f84b7b", reference:
reference3, path: "@:3", name: name3, value:
a4da0ad3ed684003949e971fa8699d27 },
reference4: !WireProperty { id: -978531391916948535, revision:
524865454, key: dd8d9eef-ce7d-4423-a781-06605e37b011, reference:
reference4, path: "@:4", name: name4, value:
bec03d70d0e6482e81b7bb0e357f3d92 },
reference5: !WireProperty { id: 3374944958029627633, revision:
-398086406, key: "0a1e056e-e6e7-4e11-b303-c293c6fdf5f3", reference:
reference5, path: "@:5", name: name5, value:
"69813084c39d4936b69b0dde0f0c0ed5" },
reference6: !WireProperty { id: -8433021096891598682, revision:
-736117722, key: "776461da-264a-4827-aeea-3a4d2ef5a8ba", reference:
reference6, path: "@:6", name: name6, value:
"3367fa70b0e14aed80abc5172414134c" },
reference1: !WireProperty { id: -142490954081820345, revision:
-318848728, key: "2205a065-a732-40c1-a635-b421f8f8cba6", reference:
reference1, path: "@:1", name: name1, value:
"6fafe5346ddc4ec18d80f45104332eac" },
reference2: !WireProperty { id: 2991033472590306421, revision:
1566613018, key: d8f3385b-c268-4d0c-88bd-d9883ca31ab4, reference:
reference2, path: "@:2", name: name2, value:
"74641a3b78b64837a67433a30b40016f" }
}

the output for field less now looks like, this is the most difficult to
read as it has the least information. If you wanted to make it readable,
you would parse the data, and print the parsed data (note I added a
toString()) method for you.

--- !!meta-data #binary
234234234
23
f4a93b1e-9c86-4fc3-8c8e-529a034a506e
reference
@
name
[
reference7: !WireProperty [
115906392025424068,
154486320,
"22711f61-923c-41fc-92b3-0e2ca5c3f6a8",
reference7,
"@:7",
name7,
"6c63fa3a28894b0ca770af1688ad8fb6"
]
reference8: !WireProperty [
6431574489447352160,
1976658183,
"6d23c6dd-91b8-4c8c-bcca-4516c4b42313",
reference8,
"@:8",
name8,
a68645912c6f4556afebaa1c1a9c8572
]
reference9: !WireProperty [
3357362923123882492,
!int -731973258,
a7d80411-8184-4e6e-80eb-a494ffb39b7e,
reference9,
"@:9",
name9,
"792d1edb686041e397246862887b331f"
]
reference3: !WireProperty [
7741702624161412808,
!int -1298385948,
"324e6e71-aa05-4871-b0ba-d70d931e2ea6",
reference3,
"@:3",
name3,
d7b7bb14f1e6438585c2ea9118c9ce6f
]

On 13 February 2016 at 03:32, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

I created a pull request.

Failed tests:
WireCollectionTest.testMultipleReads:59 Cannot match property child
element WireProperty
WireCollectionTest.testMultipleReads:59 expected:<3> but was:<1>

let me know what you think.

On a different note:
If the collection is empty you still get an empty array in the wire. SO
I created this check before to eliminate the extra empty collection writing

if (properties.size() > 0) {
    wire.write(WireCollection.Values.PROPERTIES).marshallableAsMap(properties);
}
if (collections.size() > 0) {
    wire.write(WireCollection.Values.COLLECTIONS).marshallableAsMap(collections);
}

in some cases the class name appears in the wire, I guess this is
necessary in case there are polymorphic classes and the collection can have
different specific types under the hood. ANy suggestions to clean this up?

][
!net.openhft.chronicle.wire.reuse.WireCollection [
8426082448332188729,
!int -47647815,
"2c791eb9-753b-4c72-ad23-63bdf66ae3f4",
reference3,
"@:3",
name3[

Thanks again for your support.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[gadieichhorn]

Thank you! yes, looking very concise.
Is it a must to have all the keys in the same enum?

[peter-lawrey]

It's not a must, but it does reduce duplication. You don't have to use
enums at all provided the reader will accept the fields written. enums is
just a simple way to a) ensure that the writer and reader use the same
names b) define the code() to use if you have numbered fields.

On 13 February 2016 at 12:07, Gadi [email protected] wrote:

Thank you! yes, looking very concise.
Is it a must to have all the keys in the same enum?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#15 (comment)
.

[hft-team-city]

Released in Chronicle-Wire-2.20.101, BOM-2.20.134