From e09c99a784f8c19f0d1c3610051fe07ace2144f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Greg Dennis <gregsdennis@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:06:41 +1200
Subject: [PATCH] jsonnode's weird api

---
 _posts/2023/2023-07-26-jsonnode-odd-api.md | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 106 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 _posts/2023/2023-07-26-jsonnode-odd-api.md

diff --git a/_posts/2023/2023-07-26-jsonnode-odd-api.md b/_posts/2023/2023-07-26-jsonnode-odd-api.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e7147b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/_posts/2023/2023-07-26-jsonnode-odd-api.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+---
+title: "JsonNode's Odd API"
+date: 2023-07-26 09:00:00 +1200
+tags: [json-path, json-pointer]
+toc: true
+pin: false
+---
+
+```c#
+var array = new JsonArray
+{
+    ["a"] = 1,
+    ["b"] = 2,
+    ["c"] = 3,
+};
+```
+
+This compiles.  Why does this compile?!
+
+Today we're going to explore that.
+
+## What's wrong?
+
+In case you didn't see it, we're creating a `JsonArray` instance and initializing using key/value pairs.  But arrays don't contain key/value pairs; they contain values.  Objects contain key/value pairs.
+
+```c#
+var list = new List<int>
+{
+    ["a"] = 1,
+    ["b"] = 2,
+    ["c"] = 3,
+};
+```
+
+This doesn't compile, as one would expect.  So why does `JsonArray` allow this?  Is the collection initializer broken?
+
+## Collection initializers
+
+Microsoft actually has some really good [documentation](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/object-and-collection-initializers#collection-initializers) on collection initializers so I'm not going to dive into it here.  Have a read through that if you like.
+
+The crux of it comes down to when collection initializers are allowed.  First, you need to implement `IEnumerable<T>` and an `.Add(T)` method (apparently it also works as an extension method).  This will enable the basic collection initializer syntax, like
+
+```c#
+var list = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3 };
+```
+
+But you can also enable direct-indexing initialization by adding an indexer.  This lets us do thing like
+
+```c#
+var list = new List<int>(10)
+{
+   [2] = 1,
+   [5] = 2,
+   [6] = 3
+};
+```
+
+More commonly, you may see this used for `Dictionary<TKey, TValue>` initialization:
+
+```c#
+var dict = new Dictionary<string, int>
+{
+    ["a"] = 1,
+    ["b"] = 2,
+    ["c"] = 3,
+}
+```
+
+But, wait... does that mean that `JsonArray` has a string indexer?
+
+## `JsonArray` has a string indexer!
+
+It sure does!  You can see it in the documentation, right there under [Properties](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.text.json.nodes.jsonarray?view=net-7.0#properties).
+
+Why?!  Why would you define a string indexer on an array type?
+
+Well, they didn't.  They [defined](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.text.json.nodes.jsonnode?view=net-7.0#properties) it and the integer indexer on the base type, `JsonNode`, as a convenience for people working directly with the base type without having to cast it to a `JsonArray` or `JsonObject` first.
+
+But now, all of the `JsonNode`-derived types have both an integer indexer and a string indexer, and it's really weird.  It makes all of this code completely valid:
+
+```c#
+JsonValue number = ((JsonNode)5).AsValue();  // can't cast directly to JsonValue
+_ = number[5];        // compiles but will explode
+_ = number["five"];   // compiles but will explode
+
+JsonArray array = new() { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
+_ = array[5];         // fine
+_ = array["five"];    // compiles but will explode
+
+JsonObject obj = new() { ["five"] = 1 };
+_ = obj[5];           // compiles but will explode
+_ = obj["five"];      // fine
+```
+
+## Is this useful?
+
+This seems like a very strange API design decision to me.  I don't think I'd ever trust a `JsonNode` enough to confidently attempt to index it before checking to see if it _can_ be indexed.  Furthermore, the process of checking whether it can be indexed can easily result in a correctly-typed variable.
+
+```c#
+if (node is JsonArray array)
+    Console.WriteLine(array[5]);  
+```
+
+This will probably explode because I didn't check bounds, but from a type safety point of view, this is SO much better.
+
+I have no need to access indexed values directly from a `JsonNode`.  I think this API enables programming techniques that are dangerously close to using the `dynamic` keyword, which should be [avoided at all costs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyGAEbmiWjE).