Eliminated info creation for non-public properties #2278
Conversation
| CreateObject = options.MemberAccessorStrategy.CreateConstructor(type); | ||
|
|
||
| PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic); | ||
| PropertyInfo[] properties = type.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should add some tests ensuring that the serializer doesn't deserialize/serialize non-public properties under any circumstance including:
- when a derived type adds a non-public
newproperty which collides with a public property defined on the parent - when there are property name collisions between public/non-public properties due to
[JsonPropertyName] - when there are property name collisions between public/non-public properties due to
JsonNamingPolicy
all such tests should have variants checking that public properties that are [JsonIgnore]'d are not accidentally (de)serialized due to mismatching JsonPropertyInfo with a colliding non-public member.
https://dotnetfiddle.net/2BD7bK goes over a few expecations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@YohDeadfall - let us know if you are up for adding the tests in this PR based on what @layomia suggested (its fine if you prefer someone else take that on, but will certainly be helpful to add).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Though about improving tests, but as a separate PR (would like to do some cleanup and improvements for better coverage/understanding). Will take a look at this tomorrow.
|
@maryamariyan - is the bot not able to auto-label PRs with areas or was this a one-off issue? |
ahsonkhan
added
the
enhancement
|
From #2246 (comment)
@steveharter, don't we have tests for that case? This PR removed the flag and the existing tests are passing in CI. Either it wasn't needed, or we have a test gap. |
Sorry I misspoke. BindingFlags.Public works fine with non-pulic setters. |
|
Merging this. Next steps from this PR are
These tasks help establish a pattern and expectations for member collision handling which is needed en-route field support. @YohDeadfall please let us know if you can include these in your plans for tests/coverage over the next couple of days; otherwise I'm happy to get this work started. |
|
@layomia, started to work on the first already. Since tests cover the issue, I can work on it too. |
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
5 participants
Since JSON serialization doesn't support private properties at all, there is no need to create info for them. Previously discussed in #2242.