Обсуждение: JSON doc example (matchiness)
The JSON doc has this example (to show the need for double backslash): $ ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") The example is not wrong exactly, and can be cast to jsonpath, but as-is can never match anything. I think it'd be helpful to provide that example so that it more probably matches when the user does a quick trial. Llet's change it to something like: $.* ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") Patch attached. thanks, Erik Rijkers
Вложения
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:18:44PM +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote: > > The JSON doc has this example (to show the need for double backslash): > > $ ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") > > > The example is not wrong exactly, and can be cast to jsonpath, but as-is can > never match anything. > > I think it'd be helpful to provide that example so that it more probably > matches when the user does a quick trial. > > Llet's change it to something like: > > $.* ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") Ah, I see. What you are telling here is that we match the regex on the full JSON string, which is pretty useless, and you are suggesting to change things so as we'd match with the key names at the first level. Makes sense. This paragraph of the docs say: "For example, to match strings that contain only digits" Could we be more precise here? "strings" looks to much generic to me in this context when actually referring to a set of path of keys in a JSON blob. -- Michael
Вложения
On 5/8/21 3:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:18:44PM +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> The JSON doc has this example (to show the need for double backslash): >> >> $ ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") >> >> >> The example is not wrong exactly, and can be cast to jsonpath, but as-is can >> never match anything. >> >> I think it'd be helpful to provide that example so that it more probably >> matches when the user does a quick trial. >> >> Llet's change it to something like: >> >> $.* ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") > Ah, I see. What you are telling here is that we match the regex on > the full JSON string, which is pretty useless, and you are suggesting > to change things so as we'd match with the key names at the first > level. Makes sense. > > This paragraph of the docs say: > "For example, to match strings that contain only digits" > Could we be more precise here? "strings" looks to much generic to > me in this context when actually referring to a set of path of keys in > a JSON blob. Yes, "string values" is probably another small improvement. > -- > Michael
On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 7:09 PM Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On 5/8/21 3:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:18:44PM +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote: > >> The JSON doc has this example (to show the need for double backslash): > >> > >> $ ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") > >> > >> > >> The example is not wrong exactly, and can be cast to jsonpath, but as-is can > >> never match anything. > >> > >> I think it'd be helpful to provide that example so that it more probably > >> matches when the user does a quick trial. > >> > >> Llet's change it to something like: > >> > >> $.* ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") > > Ah, I see. What you are telling here is that we match the regex on > > the full JSON string, which is pretty useless, and you are suggesting > > to change things so as we'd match with the key names at the first > > level. Makes sense. > > > > This paragraph of the docs say: > > "For example, to match strings that contain only digits" > > Could we be more precise here? "strings" looks to much generic to > > me in this context when actually referring to a set of path of keys in > > a JSON blob. > > Yes, "string values" is probably another small improvement. What about the attached patch? Wording "string values of the root object" seems most precise to me. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
Вложения
On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 4:01 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 7:09 PM Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > On 5/8/21 3:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:18:44PM +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote: > > >> The JSON doc has this example (to show the need for double backslash): > > >> > > >> $ ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") > > >> > > >> > > >> The example is not wrong exactly, and can be cast to jsonpath, but as-is can > > >> never match anything. > > >> > > >> I think it'd be helpful to provide that example so that it more probably > > >> matches when the user does a quick trial. > > >> > > >> Llet's change it to something like: > > >> > > >> $.* ? (@ like_regex "^\\d+$") > > > Ah, I see. What you are telling here is that we match the regex on > > > the full JSON string, which is pretty useless, and you are suggesting > > > to change things so as we'd match with the key names at the first > > > level. Makes sense. > > > > > > This paragraph of the docs say: > > > "For example, to match strings that contain only digits" > > > Could we be more precise here? "strings" looks to much generic to > > > me in this context when actually referring to a set of path of keys in > > > a JSON blob. > > > > Yes, "string values" is probably another small improvement. > > What about the attached patch? Wording "string values of the root > object" seems most precise to me. I propose backpatching this to 12 when jsonpath was introduced. It seems useful to have this docs improvement every release supporting jsonpath. Objections? ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 11:17:47PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I propose backpatching this to 12 when jsonpath was introduced. It > seems useful to have this docs improvement every release supporting > jsonpath. > > Objections? None. Backpatching that is a good idea, and your suggested rewording is an improvement. -- Michael
Вложения
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 3:41 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 11:17:47PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > I propose backpatching this to 12 when jsonpath was introduced. It > > seems useful to have this docs improvement every release supporting > > jsonpath. > > > > Objections? > > None. Backpatching that is a good idea, and your suggested rewording > is an improvement. Pushed, thanks! ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov