Merged
Conversation
Fixes: ottypes#37 # Background There are some corner cases that arise in the `json0` library because - given an object `obj`, and an array `arr` -these statements are both `true` in JavaScript: ```js obj['123'] === obj[123] arr['123'] === arr[123] ``` The fact that these statements are true can lead to some unexpected silent `transform()` failures: ```js const op1 = [{p: ['a', '1', 0], si: 'hi'}] const op2 = [{p: ['a', 1], lm: 0}] json0.transform(op1, op2, 'left') ``` Actual result: `[{p: ["a", 2, 0], si: "hi"}]` Expected result: `[{p: ["a", 0, 0], si: "hi"}]` # Solution In order to prevent this, it's been decided that arrays should *always* be indexed by `number`, and objects should *always* be indexed by `string`. This change enforces stricter type checks when calling `apply()`, and now throws in the following cases: - When a `number` is used to key an object property: `type.apply({'1': 'a'}, [{p:[1], od: 'a'}])` - When a `string` is used to key an array property: `type.apply(['a'], [{p:['0'], ld: 'a'}])` - When adding a `string` to a `number`: `type.apply(1, [{p:[], na: 'a}])` - When adding a `number` to a `string`: `type.apply('a', [{p:[], na: 1}])` - When applying a string operation to a non-string: `type.apply(1, [{p: [0], si: 'a'}])`
This was referenced Jul 12, 2021
Open
alecgibson
added a commit
to reedsy/json0
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2021
This change adds a `strict` flag to control whether we have the stricter type checking introduced in ottypes#40 Strict mode will be off by default (to maintain compatibility with old `json0` versions). In order to add this flag, we also add a new `options` object to the `type`. Strict mode is enabled on the type by setting the flag: ```js type.options.strict = true ``` Note that `text0` will share the same options as `json0` (ie enabling strict mode for `json0` also enables it for `text0`). In this change we also tidy up some unused utility functions from a previous commit.
Closed
alecgibson
added a commit
to reedsy/json0
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2021
This change adds a `strict` flag to control whether we have the stricter type checking introduced in ottypes#40 Strict mode will be off by default (to maintain compatibility with old `json0` versions). In order to add this flag, we also add a new `options` object to the `type`. Strict mode is enabled on the type by setting the flag: ```js type.options.strict = true ``` Note that `text0` will share the same options as `json0` (ie enabling strict mode for `json0` also enables it for `text0`). In this change we also tidy up some unused utility functions from a previous commit.
alecgibson
added a commit
to reedsy/json0
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2021
This change removes unused utility functions that were accidentally included in ottypes#40
alecgibson
added a commit
to share/sharedb
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2021
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
alecgibson
added a commit
to reedsy/json0
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2021
This change removes unused utility functions that were accidentally included in ottypes#40
longlonggoo
added a commit
to longlonggoo/longlonggoo
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
FernhillFable
added a commit
to FernhillFable/cluster
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
adelinedaosen
added a commit
to adelinedaosen/ServiceNow
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 12, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
patriciiaDavis
added a commit
to patriciiaDavis/XWVoipKit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 12, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
elizabeClark
added a commit
to elizabeClark/eggtransformer
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 19, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
livebalupton
added a commit
to livebalupton/LEDNumbers
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 27, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
danberkos
added a commit
to danberkos/meal
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
12noise
added a commit
to 12noise/dvm
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
ighostfolio
added a commit
to ighostfolio/variousexe
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
oebicoffee
added a commit
to oebicoffee/Video_metadata_API
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 28, 2025
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
dominiksche
added a commit
to dominiksche/BCHexEditor
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2026
`json0` recently merged a [breaking change][1] which enforces some stricter type checking. Apart from this stricter type checking, no other changes were made, so any client that only ever submits well-formed ops should be able to upgrade directly without any trouble. However, if clients submitted some bad ops (that are no longer allowed under the stricter checking), then `fetchSnapshot()` will fail when trying to apply these ops to rebuild the snapshot. This failure can be surprising if the only "bad" thing about the ops was that they had [bad path types][2], because at the time when they were submitted, the snapshot would have been correctly updated. This change rescues from this particular failure by coercing paths into the correct type: `number` for arrays, and `string` for objects. Note that we use the exact same check for arrays and objects as `json0` to ensure consistency. Also note that we don't attempt to rescue new ops being submitted, because these should correctly be rejected. [1]: ottypes/json0#40 [2]: ottypes/json0#37
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes: #37
Background
There are some corner cases that arise in the
json0library because -given an object
obj, and an arrayarr-these statements are bothtruein JavaScript:The fact that these statements are true can lead to some unexpected
silent
transform()failures:Actual result:
[{p: ["a", 2, 0], si: "hi"}]Expected result:
[{p: ["a", 0, 0], si: "hi"}]Solution
In order to prevent this, it's been decided that arrays should always
be indexed by
number, and objects should always be indexed bystring.This change enforces stricter type checks when calling
apply(), andnow throws in the following cases:
numberis used to key an object property:type.apply({'1': 'a'}, [{p:[1], od: 'a'}])stringis used to key an array property:type.apply(['a'], [{p:['0'], ld: 'a'}])stringto anumber:type.apply(1, [{p:[], na: 'a}])numberto astring:type.apply('a', [{p:[], na: 1}])type.apply(1, [{p: [0], si: 'a'}])