From nobody Thu Dec 5 15:22:42 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193CE1201A3 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 15:22:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4mdqAzp7y81J for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 15:22:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18A4212020A for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 15:22:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id cy15so4239886edb.4 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 15:22:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jVT77nlMMyFCF1RRbdXx+yL2M0+WyG4SRM6sN6OZ2OU=; b=eNW8xPpUGNyxiM8Z2EzYX5gRn/OJUpnA9F5ioPJIsL9j5o1BKrjH3BciSXgkwPbP73 nyxw2DDFR6g8TtZAqEjxZUbsouAP5OrJxviO7O08Zakws7JQkKsWyDH2ELWjov42o/go DqQLIz78b6xJd1a6cswiPASBomfSqbaRzReniKAOiNlrdqCBOpj+I/uG13B0xiaVOHdC KkQGx6E7xSwJzu3YWklQ+LlB7JR5t5eF+QTSYeRlXslyl4GTiGPLVBullE3/8P4ZIuXv sbJsxJaClyHkduSWvxirjX2r3G0Xjl+Lowm2FmzMxUc+6ElU37MHNF2HN6LJxv/SZrBZ vnxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jVT77nlMMyFCF1RRbdXx+yL2M0+WyG4SRM6sN6OZ2OU=; b=oP3+E/O/tozpdgm6Fpn7eQB9XNGt4Z2EbTPrZNvyq3gf+ncWSiyi+fio+uZ6sAMQWF Y3aqtOoou/JR93FnY7zP7J+yhGB7ZDTdMB0eviNhksmcEZROm/XTBkY4VsAjX8CMPM0N rXqb29vURT3LAS3KDJcJw2Y65D4Uz3ugKyZe511XiWOs3rnCfD7yANfwUUeKQmXnhuP7 2pS9KYP1muwstAqa4QFQ72Vl82vWnrckhXex5RHNfM3hmhZC+cS0xERnoy2lcjDD9YbZ 8dmDc+V1QGxQNXTi+sAOGYD5QQrnuwVNI9KVTktKpVC+8hjWDNS0h+cWBZVgx1aMGdVA wohA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXHJQGWu/DdMZ41Lzo+F0FSB7cgZAN/wX14+nUyXg/SSxdNKRKW sKWHBmEtaDNrTOh4Ka4BlAwObOPtCvHFGzblYZtO4w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx+EAFAXkdwfFtBVca4P+V67h+DHZoSYPpuHOs9Jqhn31I2Bfrk/Itxybaq4gOjDYV8O/AFlE6w0PU0UM81aFg= X-Received: by 2002:a50:e68c:: with SMTP id z12mr13850521edm.53.1575588156261; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 15:22:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Ron Alleva Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:22:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: json@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005dc9a10598fd34bd" Archived-At: Subject: [Json] JSON Patch and null arrays X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 23:22:41 -0000 --0000000000005dc9a10598fd34bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I=E2=80=99ve been trying to find a good answer around the internet, but I= =E2=80=99ve come up short. To describe the question in a JSON patch test, I=E2=80=99m wonder= ing if this should be a valid test: { "comment": "Add array element to null", "doc": {"foo": 1}, "patch": [{"op": "add", "path": =E2=80=9C/bar/-", "value": 1}], "expected": {"foo": 1, "bar": [1]} } What should =E2=80=9Cexpected=E2=80=9D be in this case? Some libraries seem= to implement what is above, but I=E2=80=99ve seen other libraries that insist you must c= reate the array first, and only then you can add to it, so the above would result in an error. The most =E2=80=9Cuser friendly=E2=80=9D approach I believe would be the ab= ove test case. In this case, the client does not have to retrieve and interpret the object to determine if it has to create the array first, it can just add elements. Is there any opinion on what is a valid interpretation on the spec with regards to this? Is it just =E2=80=9Cundefined=E2=80=9D because we can=E2= =80=99t know that bar is intended to be an array? Thanks in advanced, Ron --0000000000005dc9a10598fd34bd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

I=E2=80=99ve been trying to find a good answer around t= he internet, but I=E2=80=99ve come up short. To describe the question in a = JSON patch test, I=E2=80=99m wondering if this should be a valid test:=C2= =A0

{ "comment"= ;: "Add array element to null",
"doc&= quot;: {"foo": 1},
"patch": [{&q= uot;op": "add", "path": =E2=80=9C/bar/-", &qu= ot;value": 1}],
"expected": {"fo= o": 1, "bar": [1]} }=C2=A0

=
What should =E2=80=9Cexpected=E2=80=9D be in this case? S= ome libraries seem to implement what is above, but I=E2=80=99ve seen other = libraries that insist you must create the array first, and only then you ca= n add to it, so the above would result in an error.=C2=A0

The most =E2=80=9Cuser friendly=E2=80=9D = approach I believe would be the above test case. In this case, the client d= oes not have to retrieve and interpret the object to determine if it has to= create the array first, it can just add elements.
<= br>
Is there any opinion on what is a valid interpre= tation on the spec with regards to this? Is it just =E2=80=9Cundefined=E2= =80=9D because we can=E2=80=99t know that bar is intended to be an array?

Thanks in advanced,
=

Ron
--0000000000005dc9a10598fd34bd--