Custom marshalers in Go: An unexpected gotcha
There's a very common question that Go devs hear regularly - “Is Go object oriented?”.
And the answer?
This is what the Go FAQ has to say about this:
Yes and no. Although Go has types and methods and allows an object-oriented style of programming, there is no type hierarchy. The concept of “interface” in Go provides a different approach that we believe is easy to use and in some ways more general. There are also ways to embed types in other types to provide something analogous—but not identical—to subclassing. Moreover, methods in Go are more general than in C++ or Java: they can be defined for any sort of data, even built-in types such as plain, “unboxed” integers. They are not restricted to structs (classes).
As a language, Go decided to keep the good parts of object-oriented programming while eliminating the more cumbersome bits. This resulted in a unique (and sometimes unidiomatic) philosophy of programming. Instead of classes, Go provides receiver functions - a function that can be attached to a data type and called only by a variable of that specific type. Receiver functions are also unique for values and references, i.e., func (o Object) and func (o *Object) are independent, allowing us to call different methods depending on whether the caller is a value or a reference. This allows us to emulate classes (to an extent) by having some form of coupling between types and methods.
How does Go handle inheritance?
Since there is no solid idea of a class, composition is used over inheritance. This is done through struct embedding. Just add your child struct type to the parent struct without associating a field name to it. The child struct members are now members of the parent struct too.
But what about the receiver functions attached to the child? This is where things get messy. To provide inheritance-style reuse of struct methods, Go uses method promotion. The way this is supposed to work is very obvious - all child methods are promoted to the parent unless there is a namespace conflict; on conflict, the parent method is given priority over the child. But there is a third player in Go - the default functions which are called when there is no custom implementation. MarshalJSON() is an excellent example of this.
Understanding JSON marshaling
When json.Marshal(foo) is called, Go looks for a MarshalJSON() receiver function implemented by the type of foo. If it does not exist, then it calls the default MarshalJSON() method. The same applies to json.Unmarshal(foo) with UnmarshalJSON(). For brevity's sake, I'll use marshaling to explain concepts in the rest of the article, but everything is valid for unmarshaling too.
Continuing from the above code, try to guess what happens in the following situation:
You probably expected the output to look like this:
But instead, the output is:
What? Where did the C and D fields go (heh, Go)? There may be an answer in the language specification for struct embedding. Here's what the Go spec says:
Given a struct type S and a named type T, promoted methods are included in the method set of the struct as follows:
- If S contains an embedded field T, the method sets of S and *S both include promoted methods with receiver T. The method set of *S also includes promoted methods with receiver *T.
- If S contains an embedded field *T, the method sets of S and *S both include promoted methods with receiver T or *T.
Right. In short, for an embedded type T:
- The methods on T is promoted to both the value and pointer of the parent type.
- If T is embedded (by value), then the methods on *T are promoted only to *S.
- If *T is embedded (by reference), then the methods on *T are promoted to both S and *S.
Now it's starting to make some sense. Since Child has a custom MarshalJSON(), this is promoted to Parent, overriding the default MarshalJSON(). And clearly, Child’s marshaler will have no clue about any of Parent's members.
Oh no, make it work!
So how do we deal with this mess? How about implementing a dummy marshaler for Parent, which calls the default method within?
When you run this, something wonderful happens - a stack overflow. Why did everything just go up in flames? To answer that, we must understand how MarshalJSON() works under the hood. Let's explore the encode.go file in the encoding/json package.
- At line 161, Marshal() calls e.marshal().
- At line 330, marshal() calls e.reflectValue(), which identifies the type at runtime and marshals it accordingly.
- At line 358, reflectValue() calls valueEncoder(), which returns an encoder function for the type.
- At line 477, valueEncoder() calls MarshalJSON()
- In our code, MarshalJSON() calls json.Marshal().
There we go! MarshalJSON() calls json.Marshal(), which calls MarshalJSON(), which calls... you know where this is going. They just call each other until we run out of memory and crash. So what is the workaround for this? We can use a type alias and call json.Marshal() on that instead to prevent the infinite recursion that was happening previously.
But the result of running this function is even more unexpected:
It looks like all the fields of Parent are present, but where did our custom logic for marshaling Child go? Remember, Child is embedded in Parent as a value, not as a reference (*Child); as MarshalJSON() is attached to c *Child, it's never called! If we attach this function to c Child instead, we're back to square one with the recursion problem. The type aliasing hack won't work here as casting an object instead of the pointer retains the methods attached to the type. Tsk tsk, we've hit a dead end!
What's the solution?
This problem is an unfortunate side effect of struct embedding and can only be fixed with significant changes to the language implementation. It has been a bone of contention amongst developers, with one person even proposing removing the entire feature from Go 2.0. This specific problem with JSON has also been discussed at length in this GitHub issue. The only way to solve this is to write a custom marshaler for Parent that calls the marshaler for Child and manually marshals the remaining fields. As for compliance with the JSON specification, that's a dragon you will have to tame on your own.
Custom marshalers are common across Go projects and can be a pain to implement with embedded types. Being aware of this issue and the workarounds considerably reduces the time and effort required to implement them correctly.