ValueTuples lose their property names when serialized
While trying to serialize a named value tuple to JSON string, it loses the names assigned to items
(string type, string text) myTypes = ("A", "I am an animal");
var cnvValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myTypes);
I am expecting the serialized value as
{"type":"A","text":"I am an animal"}
but the actual results are
{"Item1":"A","Item2":"I am an animal"}
There are two things that i am interested to know
- Why does it behave like that
- How to get the expected output
c# json.net tuples valuetuple
add a comment |
While trying to serialize a named value tuple to JSON string, it loses the names assigned to items
(string type, string text) myTypes = ("A", "I am an animal");
var cnvValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myTypes);
I am expecting the serialized value as
{"type":"A","text":"I am an animal"}
but the actual results are
{"Item1":"A","Item2":"I am an animal"}
There are two things that i am interested to know
- Why does it behave like that
- How to get the expected output
c# json.net tuples valuetuple
3
FYI github.com/JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json/issues/1505
– John
Jan 28 at 8:22
add a comment |
While trying to serialize a named value tuple to JSON string, it loses the names assigned to items
(string type, string text) myTypes = ("A", "I am an animal");
var cnvValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myTypes);
I am expecting the serialized value as
{"type":"A","text":"I am an animal"}
but the actual results are
{"Item1":"A","Item2":"I am an animal"}
There are two things that i am interested to know
- Why does it behave like that
- How to get the expected output
c# json.net tuples valuetuple
While trying to serialize a named value tuple to JSON string, it loses the names assigned to items
(string type, string text) myTypes = ("A", "I am an animal");
var cnvValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myTypes);
I am expecting the serialized value as
{"type":"A","text":"I am an animal"}
but the actual results are
{"Item1":"A","Item2":"I am an animal"}
There are two things that i am interested to know
- Why does it behave like that
- How to get the expected output
c# json.net tuples valuetuple
c# json.net tuples valuetuple
edited Jan 28 at 8:47
Caius Jard
12.1k21240
12.1k21240
asked Jan 28 at 8:20
mdowesmdowes
15311
15311
3
FYI github.com/JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json/issues/1505
– John
Jan 28 at 8:22
add a comment |
3
FYI github.com/JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json/issues/1505
– John
Jan 28 at 8:22
3
3
FYI github.com/JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json/issues/1505
– John
Jan 28 at 8:22
FYI github.com/JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json/issues/1505
– John
Jan 28 at 8:22
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
How to get the expected output
Something like this:
var myTypes = new{ type = "A", text = "I am an animal"};
var cnvValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myTypes);
should work if you’re looking for a similarly terse approach. Doesn’t use ValueTuple
s (but anonymous types) under the hood though; this is my interpreting your question as “how can I produce this expected JSON without going to the full extent of declaring a class etc”
2
You interpreted it in the correct sense. I used ValueTuples to do exactly that.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:57
add a comment |
The names are a compiler trick. If you look at the definition for ValueTuple
you'll see that its field names are just Item1
, Item2
, etc.
Since JsonConvert.SerializeObject
was compiled well before you assigned names that you could use during your compilation, it cannot recover the names.
Method parameters/return types are decorated with attributes that indicate the names to be used when a method's signature includes ValueTuple
s. This allows code authored later to "see" the names by the compiler playing tricks again, but that's the "wrong way around" to be of much use here.
How to get the expected output
Introduce an explicit type, if the names of the fields/properties are so important.
Important to note that the explicit type could be an anonymous type.
– Avner Shahar-Kashtan
Jan 28 at 8:30
3
@AvnerShahar-Kashtan Anonymous type are not explicit anyway
– Rahul
Jan 28 at 8:39
I do not want to create an explicit type to use it only once. But still I want the names of items to appear in JSON string.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:55
If you want the better names, you need to at least use an anonymous type, or a named type.ValueTuple
will not help you, as you've seen.
– Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
Jan 28 at 9:02
add a comment |
How to get the expected output
Use explicit custom type or anonymous class like in @Caius answer.
Or don't create special type for it at all (for anonymous type compiler generates class behind the scene for you) and use JObject to dynamically create json:
var myTypesJson = new JObject(
new JProperty("type", "A"),
new JProperty("text", "I am an animal")
);
var cnvValue = myTypesJson.ToString();
or use indexer and initialization syntax for it:
var createdJson = new JObject()
{
["type"] = "A",
["text"] = "I am an animal"
};
var cnvValue = createdJson.ToString();
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54397927%2fvaluetuples-lose-their-property-names-when-serialized%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
How to get the expected output
Something like this:
var myTypes = new{ type = "A", text = "I am an animal"};
var cnvValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myTypes);
should work if you’re looking for a similarly terse approach. Doesn’t use ValueTuple
s (but anonymous types) under the hood though; this is my interpreting your question as “how can I produce this expected JSON without going to the full extent of declaring a class etc”
2
You interpreted it in the correct sense. I used ValueTuples to do exactly that.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:57
add a comment |
How to get the expected output
Something like this:
var myTypes = new{ type = "A", text = "I am an animal"};
var cnvValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myTypes);
should work if you’re looking for a similarly terse approach. Doesn’t use ValueTuple
s (but anonymous types) under the hood though; this is my interpreting your question as “how can I produce this expected JSON without going to the full extent of declaring a class etc”
2
You interpreted it in the correct sense. I used ValueTuples to do exactly that.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:57
add a comment |
How to get the expected output
Something like this:
var myTypes = new{ type = "A", text = "I am an animal"};
var cnvValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myTypes);
should work if you’re looking for a similarly terse approach. Doesn’t use ValueTuple
s (but anonymous types) under the hood though; this is my interpreting your question as “how can I produce this expected JSON without going to the full extent of declaring a class etc”
How to get the expected output
Something like this:
var myTypes = new{ type = "A", text = "I am an animal"};
var cnvValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(myTypes);
should work if you’re looking for a similarly terse approach. Doesn’t use ValueTuple
s (but anonymous types) under the hood though; this is my interpreting your question as “how can I produce this expected JSON without going to the full extent of declaring a class etc”
edited Jan 28 at 11:44
Mafii
5,14212445
5,14212445
answered Jan 28 at 8:41
Caius JardCaius Jard
12.1k21240
12.1k21240
2
You interpreted it in the correct sense. I used ValueTuples to do exactly that.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:57
add a comment |
2
You interpreted it in the correct sense. I used ValueTuples to do exactly that.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:57
2
2
You interpreted it in the correct sense. I used ValueTuples to do exactly that.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:57
You interpreted it in the correct sense. I used ValueTuples to do exactly that.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:57
add a comment |
The names are a compiler trick. If you look at the definition for ValueTuple
you'll see that its field names are just Item1
, Item2
, etc.
Since JsonConvert.SerializeObject
was compiled well before you assigned names that you could use during your compilation, it cannot recover the names.
Method parameters/return types are decorated with attributes that indicate the names to be used when a method's signature includes ValueTuple
s. This allows code authored later to "see" the names by the compiler playing tricks again, but that's the "wrong way around" to be of much use here.
How to get the expected output
Introduce an explicit type, if the names of the fields/properties are so important.
Important to note that the explicit type could be an anonymous type.
– Avner Shahar-Kashtan
Jan 28 at 8:30
3
@AvnerShahar-Kashtan Anonymous type are not explicit anyway
– Rahul
Jan 28 at 8:39
I do not want to create an explicit type to use it only once. But still I want the names of items to appear in JSON string.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:55
If you want the better names, you need to at least use an anonymous type, or a named type.ValueTuple
will not help you, as you've seen.
– Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
Jan 28 at 9:02
add a comment |
The names are a compiler trick. If you look at the definition for ValueTuple
you'll see that its field names are just Item1
, Item2
, etc.
Since JsonConvert.SerializeObject
was compiled well before you assigned names that you could use during your compilation, it cannot recover the names.
Method parameters/return types are decorated with attributes that indicate the names to be used when a method's signature includes ValueTuple
s. This allows code authored later to "see" the names by the compiler playing tricks again, but that's the "wrong way around" to be of much use here.
How to get the expected output
Introduce an explicit type, if the names of the fields/properties are so important.
Important to note that the explicit type could be an anonymous type.
– Avner Shahar-Kashtan
Jan 28 at 8:30
3
@AvnerShahar-Kashtan Anonymous type are not explicit anyway
– Rahul
Jan 28 at 8:39
I do not want to create an explicit type to use it only once. But still I want the names of items to appear in JSON string.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:55
If you want the better names, you need to at least use an anonymous type, or a named type.ValueTuple
will not help you, as you've seen.
– Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
Jan 28 at 9:02
add a comment |
The names are a compiler trick. If you look at the definition for ValueTuple
you'll see that its field names are just Item1
, Item2
, etc.
Since JsonConvert.SerializeObject
was compiled well before you assigned names that you could use during your compilation, it cannot recover the names.
Method parameters/return types are decorated with attributes that indicate the names to be used when a method's signature includes ValueTuple
s. This allows code authored later to "see" the names by the compiler playing tricks again, but that's the "wrong way around" to be of much use here.
How to get the expected output
Introduce an explicit type, if the names of the fields/properties are so important.
The names are a compiler trick. If you look at the definition for ValueTuple
you'll see that its field names are just Item1
, Item2
, etc.
Since JsonConvert.SerializeObject
was compiled well before you assigned names that you could use during your compilation, it cannot recover the names.
Method parameters/return types are decorated with attributes that indicate the names to be used when a method's signature includes ValueTuple
s. This allows code authored later to "see" the names by the compiler playing tricks again, but that's the "wrong way around" to be of much use here.
How to get the expected output
Introduce an explicit type, if the names of the fields/properties are so important.
edited Jan 28 at 8:37
answered Jan 28 at 8:23
Damien_The_UnbelieverDamien_The_Unbeliever
196k17253340
196k17253340
Important to note that the explicit type could be an anonymous type.
– Avner Shahar-Kashtan
Jan 28 at 8:30
3
@AvnerShahar-Kashtan Anonymous type are not explicit anyway
– Rahul
Jan 28 at 8:39
I do not want to create an explicit type to use it only once. But still I want the names of items to appear in JSON string.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:55
If you want the better names, you need to at least use an anonymous type, or a named type.ValueTuple
will not help you, as you've seen.
– Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
Jan 28 at 9:02
add a comment |
Important to note that the explicit type could be an anonymous type.
– Avner Shahar-Kashtan
Jan 28 at 8:30
3
@AvnerShahar-Kashtan Anonymous type are not explicit anyway
– Rahul
Jan 28 at 8:39
I do not want to create an explicit type to use it only once. But still I want the names of items to appear in JSON string.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:55
If you want the better names, you need to at least use an anonymous type, or a named type.ValueTuple
will not help you, as you've seen.
– Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
Jan 28 at 9:02
Important to note that the explicit type could be an anonymous type.
– Avner Shahar-Kashtan
Jan 28 at 8:30
Important to note that the explicit type could be an anonymous type.
– Avner Shahar-Kashtan
Jan 28 at 8:30
3
3
@AvnerShahar-Kashtan Anonymous type are not explicit anyway
– Rahul
Jan 28 at 8:39
@AvnerShahar-Kashtan Anonymous type are not explicit anyway
– Rahul
Jan 28 at 8:39
I do not want to create an explicit type to use it only once. But still I want the names of items to appear in JSON string.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:55
I do not want to create an explicit type to use it only once. But still I want the names of items to appear in JSON string.
– mdowes
Jan 28 at 8:55
If you want the better names, you need to at least use an anonymous type, or a named type.
ValueTuple
will not help you, as you've seen.– Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
Jan 28 at 9:02
If you want the better names, you need to at least use an anonymous type, or a named type.
ValueTuple
will not help you, as you've seen.– Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
Jan 28 at 9:02
add a comment |
How to get the expected output
Use explicit custom type or anonymous class like in @Caius answer.
Or don't create special type for it at all (for anonymous type compiler generates class behind the scene for you) and use JObject to dynamically create json:
var myTypesJson = new JObject(
new JProperty("type", "A"),
new JProperty("text", "I am an animal")
);
var cnvValue = myTypesJson.ToString();
or use indexer and initialization syntax for it:
var createdJson = new JObject()
{
["type"] = "A",
["text"] = "I am an animal"
};
var cnvValue = createdJson.ToString();
add a comment |
How to get the expected output
Use explicit custom type or anonymous class like in @Caius answer.
Or don't create special type for it at all (for anonymous type compiler generates class behind the scene for you) and use JObject to dynamically create json:
var myTypesJson = new JObject(
new JProperty("type", "A"),
new JProperty("text", "I am an animal")
);
var cnvValue = myTypesJson.ToString();
or use indexer and initialization syntax for it:
var createdJson = new JObject()
{
["type"] = "A",
["text"] = "I am an animal"
};
var cnvValue = createdJson.ToString();
add a comment |
How to get the expected output
Use explicit custom type or anonymous class like in @Caius answer.
Or don't create special type for it at all (for anonymous type compiler generates class behind the scene for you) and use JObject to dynamically create json:
var myTypesJson = new JObject(
new JProperty("type", "A"),
new JProperty("text", "I am an animal")
);
var cnvValue = myTypesJson.ToString();
or use indexer and initialization syntax for it:
var createdJson = new JObject()
{
["type"] = "A",
["text"] = "I am an animal"
};
var cnvValue = createdJson.ToString();
How to get the expected output
Use explicit custom type or anonymous class like in @Caius answer.
Or don't create special type for it at all (for anonymous type compiler generates class behind the scene for you) and use JObject to dynamically create json:
var myTypesJson = new JObject(
new JProperty("type", "A"),
new JProperty("text", "I am an animal")
);
var cnvValue = myTypesJson.ToString();
or use indexer and initialization syntax for it:
var createdJson = new JObject()
{
["type"] = "A",
["text"] = "I am an animal"
};
var cnvValue = createdJson.ToString();
answered Feb 3 at 23:15
Mariusz PawelskiMariusz Pawelski
11.4k73556
11.4k73556
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54397927%2fvaluetuples-lose-their-property-names-when-serialized%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
FYI github.com/JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json/issues/1505
– John
Jan 28 at 8:22