Dictionary>>#asJson does not produce valid JSON when using integer keys about seaside HOT 6 CLOSED

Hey @koendehondt ,

Instead of erroring, I opted to convert the key (1 2) to a string: '#(1 2)'.
Maybe this is better than erroring, since we also convert a numeric value to a string automatically again.
What do you think?

from seaside.

I think it is strange 😄, but it is a way to make it work for every object, even if it may not be very useful. That is why I suggested to signal an error in case the Smalltalk dictionary has keys that are not supported.

The result is that the array key will be transformed into a string that does not hold a valid JSON array, because #(1 2) is not valid JSON. [1, 2] is.

from seaside.

On second thought I am not happy with it either. The serialisation to a string is different on each platform so that also makes things dodgy. But mind that the key is always a string, and its contents should not be any valid JSON serialisation.

Throwing an error is probably the best course of action. But in that case a number should also error, otherwise we are not consistent. The keys in dictionaries you want to convert must then always be strings.

This is probably not something we can ship in a bugfix release since it changes the semantics. I'll have to see...

from seaside.

Throwing an error is probably the best course of action. But in that case a number should also error, otherwise we are not consistent.

I agree.

This is probably not something we can ship in a bugfix release since it changes the semantics.

Indeed.

from seaside.

I updated #1368
It introduces a flag to make the JSON writer error when the keys of a dictionary are not strings.

from seaside.

OK. Thanks @jbrichau.

from seaside.