Added a way to preserve order, #197.

[MaartenX]

Purpose / Goal

This PR adds an option that preserves the order of tags as specified in #197. It is not meant as a finished update (although it works in the tests), but to continue the discussion that was started by @amitguptagwl.

I look forward to seeing what you think of the change.

Type

Please mention the type of PR

• [ ]Bug Fix
• [ ]Refactoring / Technology upgrade
• [x]New Feature

Note : Please ensure that you've read contribution guidelines before raising this PR.

Bookmark this repository for further updates.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.6%) to 97.006% when pulling 8083bfb on MaartenX:feature/197 into be81aac on NaturalIntelligence:master.

[amitguptagwl]

@MaartenX thanks for your effort. I'll be waiting for you to finish this PR. Please be free for any discussion.

[MaartenX]

@amitguptagwl I fixed the open issues.

I had to find a way to specify in the json that an array of nodes 'has a specific order'. The way I do that currently is by creating an empty key, and the value will be treated as an array that contains the objects in the order they will appear in the xml. I thought about using a 'magic' value key, but since an empty key was not used, I picked that.

[amitguptagwl]

Sorry for the delay. I'll check your PR on next weekend.

[MaartenX]

Any update?

[amitguptagwl]

Sorry, @MaartenX I was in the impression that the changes are still going on. So hold the review. Will update you.

[amitguptagwl]

There is a small suggestion. I haven't checked for the complete PR yet. I'll probably checkout and understand the flow for better undersanding and output.

[amitguptagwl]

I have noticed that the possible values of preserveOrder are text and true in your code change. But I couldn't find value text has been used for any different implementation. Can you please explain to me about that?

As you mentioned that you have skipped CDATA in this PR, I wanted to understand if it is because of reducing the complexity of the PR, or it was not feasible at all. Because I just wanted to ensure that the current approach can be extended to adopt future changes.

[amitguptagwl]

@MaartenX any update?

[schoste]

How is the status of the PR?

[qhkm]

Been waiting for this PR too

[lwestfall]

Me too, coming up on a year since PR was started. Any way we can get priority on this? Would a donation help? I can't use this until this is merged.

[MaartenX]

Hey guys, this changes was done because of a time-critical update I needed, so I used it from my fork. I'll try and pick it up again since you are interested, but that won't be in the coming week (really busy with work).

[lwestfall]

Appreciate the update!

[amitguptagwl]

@MaartenX @lwestfall if you check v4 branch. I've already handled this feature. However, I have not completed the tests so I can't publish the changes. I'm currently busy in another opensource project that I'm hoping to complete in few weeks.

Any help to migrate the tests from master branch to v4 branch will speed the things up. The only thing will be left is to update the JSON2XML parser for new changes.

So I'm closing this PR.

[samuelcolvin]

I really need this feature.

Is there anywhere we can track the progress of v4?