[Question] DotnetClient - serialization of private record type

[Evangelink]

Hi,

I am wondering if it's possible to pass some extra information to the dotnet client serializer on how to deserialize some type?

I have defined a NonEmptyList type which is a simple wrapper around a List with the record as private.

#r "nuget: Fable.Remoting.DotnetClient"

open System

open Fable.Remoting.Json
open Newtonsoft.Json

let converter = FableJsonConverter()

let roundTrip<'T> (obj: 'T) =
    let result = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(obj, converter)
    JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<'T>(result, converter)
    |> printfn "%A"

type NonEmptyList<'T> =
    private {​ ​​List:'T list }​​​

type TestRecord = { ​​​TestList: NonEmptyList<string> }​​​
let testRecord = { ​​​TestList = { ​​​List = [ "" ] } ​​​}​​​

// Run the following and you have an error about private ctor (error makes sense). Remove the `private` keyword before the record and everything works fine.
roundTrip<TestRecord>(testRecord)

I would like to be able to deserialize this type but it seems that there is no way for me to pass a JsonConverter object. What would you recommend?

[Zaid-Ajaj]

Hi @Evangelink, I think the only right now for the FableJsonConverter is to accept types with public constructors. I need to double check

[jannesiera]

Is there a way to add support for this? We use this pattern a lot so that means we currently either can't use Fable.Remoting or we have to make a bunch of constructors public while they really shouldn't be (and has the potential to introduce bugs when someone forgets that the default constructor is off limits).

[Zaid-Ajaj]

Hi @jannesiera it has been a while since last time I looked into this issue and to be honest I don't know the status of it right now, if you could have a go at it, that would be great! I believe it was possible before so now not sure why it didn't work any more. I'll be happy to review PRs, then make time merge and publish the fixes

[jannesiera]

Unfortunately, I have very little time at the moment and won't be able to allocate the resources for this.