to_dict() method converts integer field values to strings

[ahobsonsayers]

When using the to_dict method of a message, integer fields are converted to strings. This can be see on this line in the source code.

Why are integers converted to strings, while all other types are left as is? Is this a bug that i can open a PR for, or it deliberate? Any help is much appreciated as this seems like a bit odd behaviour

[nat-n]

That seems odd, any insight? @danielgtaylor

[jameslan]

For 64 bits int, spec requires it to be a string.

There was a discussion on protobuf repo.

But I do not quite understand the list handling of int64 types. @danielgtaylor

[boukeversteegh]

But I do not quite understand the list handling of int64 types

As far as I can see, the list implementation is equivalent to the single int64 type. It just converts all ints in the list to a string. Or is something else unclear about it?

[jameslan]

Oh that's for repeated. I forgot about it. Then there's no question about the code.

[samschlegel]

One thing I know we found confusing when looking into betterproto is that to_dict converts everything to the JSON representation, but that isn't really clearly documented. It makes sense with how to_json just json.dumps the output of to_dict, since without this conversion you'd have no way to ensure it matches the spec, but it's confusing when you're expected to_dict to return pythonic values like datetime or in this case an int and leads this behavior being interpreted as a bug

Maybe adding a separate to_python that would fairly simply convert to pythonic types, and then possibly rename to_dict to to_json_dict or something of the like would be a good feature request to clear up this confusion?

[boukeversteegh]

One thing I know we found confusing when looking into betterproto is that to_dict converts everything to the JSON representation, but that isn't really clearly documented. It makes sense with how to_json just json.dumps the output of to_dict, since without this conversion you'd have no way to ensure it matches the spec, but it's confusing when you're expected to_dict to return pythonic values like datetime or in this case an int and leads this behavior being interpreted as a bug

That makes a lot of sense!

I'm not entirely sure what the use-case is of to_dict, other than as a stepping stone for json output, but perhaps people use it for their own serialization methods? any insight into this @ahobsonsayers?

depending on how users use to_dict, it could either be useful to convert everything to low-level values, or actually keep it pythonic.

• to_dict is a bit unclear with respect to its contract

• to_json_dict is an isolated case for which we can define a clear contract (serializes object to dictionary directly convertible to a JSON string). It would be a breaking change but I'd suggest to introduce this field, and then see how we re-interpret to_dict

[jhowarth]

@boukeversteegh One use case is to convert protobuf messages into domain objects with an object mapper. Most object mappers take dictionaries as arguments.

[v1b1]

Any updates for this? Currently on 2.0.0b2.

My particular use case imports YAML, validates each property based on the dataclass field types, does some processing based on the field name/type, and passes the output of to_dict(casing=...) to a third-party module. Right now I have to perform a post-processing step on the output of to_dict() by traversing the tree and converting specific values but I'd rather not have to maintain that code.

[jonmather]

Would also +1 this issue. There's a related issue on how integers should be parsed as keys for map types in from_dict() - currently all treated as strings #235

[mbrancato]

I know it was mentioned that the spec calls this out, but that either isn't true or was changed. The spec clear says that protobuf int64 values should be int/long in Python.

[4] 64-bit or unsigned 32-bit integers are always represented as long when decoded, but can be an int if an int is given when setting the field. In all cases, the value must fit in the type represented when set. See [2].

[Gobot1234]

This has been fixed by adding to_pydict which will have the expected behaviour