Unordered fields not supported yet

[gadieichhorn]

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: Unordered fields not supported yet, Expected=id was: '' testMultipleReads1: Unsupported type '3'

[danielshaya]

You have typo here:

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

Regards

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Gadi notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183282097 .

[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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183298896 .

[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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183298896 .

[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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183403160 .

[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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183422437 .

[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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183502542 .

[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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183625038 .

[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 peter.lawrey@chronicle.software 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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183625038 .

[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 peter.lawrey@chronicle.software 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 < peter.lawrey@chronicle.software> 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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183625038 .

[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 notifications@github.com 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 https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Wire/issues/15#issuecomment-183704273 .

[hft-team-city]

Released in Chronicle-Wire-2.20.101, BOM-2.20.134