encoding/json: UnmarshalTypeError.Error message seems insensible

[dsnet]

Consider this snippet:

type GoStruct1 struct {
	AlphaField GoStruct2 `json:"alpha_field"`
}
type GoStruct2 struct {
	BravoField []GoStruct3 `json:"bravo_field"`
}
type GoStruct3 struct {
	StringField string `json:"string_field"`
}

func main() {
	fmt.Println(json.Unmarshal([]byte(`{"alpha_field":{"bravo_field":[{"string_field": 3.14159}]}}`), new(GoStruct1)))
}

On Go1.15, this prints:

json: cannot unmarshal number into Go struct field GoStruct3.alpha_field.bravo_field.string_field of type string

Notice that it combines two different namespaces where it is:

{{GoTypeName}}.{{JSONPath}}

and that the message says that it is a "Go struct field" when it isn't.

\cc @mvdan

[dsnet]

Related considerations:

• Should the JSON path include array indexes?
• Should the JSON path disambiguate the path if dots appear in the object name? Example.

Strawman proposal: the JSON path should be a valid expression in JavaScript to address the specific value from the root value.

• For objects, we use .foo if the object name is a valid JavaScript identifier, otherwise we use ["fizz.buzz"] if it isn't.
• For arrays, we use [5].

[mvdan]

I agree with the strawman proposal. In that proposal, what would you use in place of GoStruct3?

Also, is there a "json path" spec we can simply adhere to? or do we simply try to get as close to a JS expression as we reasonably can?

cc @cuonglm who worked on the original feature. I did think about proposing to make it more consistent with slices and such, but at the end of the day I thought the addition was already a big step forward.

[dsnet]

Also, is there a "json path" spec we can simply adhere to?

One option is RFC 6901, which uses / instead of . as the delimiter. This would be the visual difference between .fooName["quoted/name"].barName[5] and /fooName/quoted~1Name/barName/5. I kind of like the simplicity and visual aesthetics of this. It only requires escaping of the ~ and / as ~0 and ~1 respectively (note that ASCII control characters in U+0000 to U+0020 are left as is).

do we simply try to get as close to a JS expression as we reasonably can?

The grammar for a JS identifier is pretty complicated. Fortunately, the Go identifier grammar is a strict subset of the JS identifier grammar, so we could just use that as a shortcut.

[dsnet]

Another oddity. If the target type is a Go map, then the JSON object names for those are dropped: https://play.golang.org/p/DP-bAr_6TUy

[fl0cke]

The GoStruct3 at the beginning is extremely confusing. I would either

• replace it with the type name of the outermost struct, e.g. GoStruct1.alpha_field.bravo_field.string_field or nothing if the target is a map.
• replace it with a $ sign, e.g. $.alpha_field.bravo_field.string_field. This is similar to how JSON path expressions are formatted in MariaDB. See https://mariadb.com/kb/en/jsonpath-expressions/.
• omit it completely, e.g. alpha_field.bravo_field.string_field