我 fork 了一个很棒的项目 here ，并且一直在学习一些东西。如果您看到 here，我无法弄清楚的问题是关于自定义解码的一些事情您可以看到这解码了 Thing 结构，它包含一个 Data interface{} 字段，然后使用 Kind string 字段解码。除了嵌套情况外，这一切都很好。所以最好的事情是一个例子:
只是说你有 Thing 结构，它是一个 listing，因此 Thing.Data 被解码为类型 listing 。然后 listing 有 3 个类型为 link 的 Children 保存在 Children []Thing 字段中。这些 child 最终属于 map[string]interface {} 类型，这是我的问题。我怎样才能通过嵌套数据进行解码？这样 Children.Data 也被解码。有没有办法在 go 中执行此操作，还是我必须编写一个大循环或递归算法？请让我知道您的想法，或者我对这种情况的看法是否完全错误。谢谢
更新 这是一个 json 示例
{
"kind": "Listing",
"data": {
"after": null,
"dist": 10,
"facets": {},
"modhash": null,
"whitelist_status": "all_ads",
"children": [
{
"kind": "t3",
"data": {
"domain": "self.nanocurrency",
"approved_at_utc": null,
"mod_reason_by": null,
"banned_by": null,
"num_reports": null,
"subreddit_id": "t5_2wlj3",
"thumbnail_width": null,
"subreddit": "CryptoCurrency",
"selftext_html": null,
"selftext": "",
"likes": null,
"suggested_sort": null,
"crosspost_parent_list": [
{
"domain": "self.nanocurrency",
"approved_at_utc": null,
"mod_reason_by": null,
"banned_by": null,
"num_reports": null,
"subreddit_id": "t5_4br49",
"thumbnail_width": null,
"subreddit": "nanocurrency",
"selftext_html": "<!-- SC_OFF --><div class=\"md\"><p>Seeing lots of comments about the lack of timestamps in the protocol, and just wanted to provide some information on why objectively accurate, global time timestamps are an illusion in decentralized systems. Logical time on the other hand is achievable and is in fact achieved in Nano via the individual block chains and the directed, acyclic graph (DAG). </p>\n\n<p>Generally, in a decentralized, distributed system, only logical time (C happened after B happened after A) can be agreed on globally (e.g. Lamport time: <a href=\"https://amturing.acm.org/p558-lamport.pdf\">https://amturing.acm.org/p558-lamport.pdf</a> or vector clocks). This is what the nano ledger does via chaining blocks, just as any other blockchain. Then it connects those chains via a DAG. Syncing global time to logical time is a hard problem that can either be approached via a consensus approach which is prone to sybil attacks, via a probabilistic approach which is what most blockchains go with - essentially relying on their peers - or a centralized approach like NTP which is a no-go in a decentralized system. If you&#39;re interested, check e.g. this paper: <a href=\"http://soft.vub.ac.be/%7Etvcutsem/distsys/clocks.pdf\">http://soft.vub.ac.be/~tvcutsem/distsys/clocks.pdf</a></p>\n\n<p>So what you&#39;re running into is the problem that while theoretically all or a relevant subset of nodes within the Nano or Bitcoin or Ethereum network could agree to call a certain time &quot;Monday February 12 2018 20:35:23&quot;, this timestamp could still be incorrect vs the outside world.</p>\n\n<p>That&#39;s why any accurate global timestamps in software today rely on centralized information and trusted entities. The only way this can change is if machines start setting their clocks on their own accurately (e.g. chip-scale atomic clocks)</p>\n\n<p>Some people think this is bad news for Nano because in traditional blockchain, timestamps are fairly important because they are used in new block validation: <a href=\"http://culubas.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/timejacking-bitcoin_802.html\">http://culubas.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/timejacking-bitcoin_802.html</a> . Timestamps are a blessing and a curse at the same time in blockchain: They allow for timing and validation of blocks and therefore regulation of coin mining, but also allow for timestamp double spend attacks. Since Nano does not use mining, it is not susceptible to those attacks.</p>\n\n<p>Even with the relative importance of time and timestamps in Bitcoin, timestamp in Bitcoin are not guaranteed to be corresponding to logical time on the chain. Here&#39;s the bitcoin wiki talking about the bitcoin block timestamp: <a href=\"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp\">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp</a> </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n<p>A timestamp is accepted as valid if it is greater than the median timestamp of previous 11 blocks, and less than the network-adjusted time + 2 hours. &quot;Network-adjusted time&quot; is the median of the timestamps returned by all nodes connected to you. As a result, block timestamps are not exactly accurate, and they do not even need to be in order. Block times are accurate only to within an hour or two. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This is probably as good as it gets. Still no ordering guarantees though, and a possibilities for attacks which have been discussed again and again. There are certain guards in Bitcoin code to prevent these from happening. </p>\n\n<p>So if you have somebody lecturing you about how architecturally superior coins would have a accurate and monotonically increasing timestamps, point them here, or here: <a href=\"https://cointelegraph.com/news/timestamp-hacking-debunking-the-myth-of-precision-timestamps\">https://cointelegraph.com/news/timestamp-hacking-debunking-the-myth-of-precision-timestamps</a></p>\n\n<p>Would timestamps be convenient to have on the protocol? Yes, and that would likely be a good reason to include them. Are timestamps accurately depicting global time, and can they be used as evidence in any chain? No they can&#39;t.</p>\n\n<p>Why are we seeing inaccurate timestamps in the block explorer? Because these are kept in a db outside of the ledger and have been set January 19. Nothing more to it.</p>\n\n<p>Why do people like to babble about how this is a weakness in Nano? No clue.</p>\n</div><!-- SC_ON -->",
"selftext": "Seeing lots of comments about the lack of timestamps in the protocol, and just wanted to provide some information on why objectively accurate, global time timestamps are an illusion in decentralized systems. Logical time on the other hand is achievable and is in fact achieved in Nano via the individual block chains and the directed, acyclic graph (DAG). \n\nGenerally, in a decentralized, distributed system, only logical time (C happened after B happened after A) can be agreed on globally (e.g. Lamport time: https://amturing.acm.org/p558-lamport.pdf or vector clocks). This is what the nano ledger does via chaining blocks, just as any other blockchain. Then it connects those chains via a DAG. Syncing global time to logical time is a hard problem that can either be approached via a consensus approach which is prone to sybil attacks, via a probabilistic approach which is what most blockchains go with - essentially relying on their peers - or a centralized approach like NTP which is a no-go in a decentralized system. If you're interested, check e.g. this paper: http://soft.vub.ac.be/~tvcutsem/distsys/clocks.pdf\n\nSo what you're running into is the problem that while theoretically all or a relevant subset of nodes within the Nano or Bitcoin or Ethereum network could agree to call a certain time \"Monday February 12 2018 20:35:23\", this timestamp could still be incorrect vs the outside world.\n\nThat's why any accurate global timestamps in software today rely on centralized information and trusted entities. The only way this can change is if machines start setting their clocks on their own accurately (e.g. chip-scale atomic clocks)\n\nSome people think this is bad news for Nano because in traditional blockchain, timestamps are fairly important because they are used in new block validation: http://culubas.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/timejacking-bitcoin_802.html . Timestamps are a blessing and a curse at the same time in blockchain: They allow for timing and validation of blocks and therefore regulation of coin mining, but also allow for timestamp double spend attacks. Since Nano does not use mining, it is not susceptible to those attacks.\n\nEven with the relative importance of time and timestamps in Bitcoin, timestamp in Bitcoin are not guaranteed to be corresponding to logical time on the chain. Here's the bitcoin wiki talking about the bitcoin block timestamp: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp \n\n> A timestamp is accepted as valid if it is greater than the median timestamp of previous 11 blocks, and less than the network-adjusted time + 2 hours. \"Network-adjusted time\" is the median of the timestamps returned by all nodes connected to you. As a result, block timestamps are not exactly accurate, and they do not even need to be in order. Block times are accurate only to within an hour or two. \n\nThis is probably as good as it gets. Still no ordering guarantees though, and a possibilities for attacks which have been discussed again and again. There are certain guards in Bitcoin code to prevent these from happening. \n\nSo if you have somebody lecturing you about how architecturally superior coins would have a accurate and monotonically increasing timestamps, point them here, or here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/timestamp-hacking-debunking-the-myth-of-precision-timestamps\n\nWould timestamps be convenient to have on the protocol? Yes, and that would likely be a good reason to include them. Are timestamps accurately depicting global time, and can they be used as evidence in any chain? No they can't.\n\nWhy are we seeing inaccurate timestamps in the block explorer? Because these are kept in a db outside of the ledger and have been set January 19. Nothing more to it.\n\nWhy do people like to babble about how this is a weakness in Nano? No clue.",
"likes": null,
"suggested_sort": null,
"user_reports": [],
"secure_media": null,
"is_reddit_media_domain": false,
"link_flair_text": null,
"id": "7ww6bm",
"banned_at_utc": null,
"mod_reason_title": null,
"view_count": null,
"archived": false,
"clicked": false,
"media_embed": {},
"report_reasons": null,
"author": "ohlookaballoon",
"num_crossposts": 2,
"saved": false,
"mod_reports": [],
"can_mod_post": false,
"is_crosspostable": true,
"pinned": false,
"score": 24,
"approved_by": null,
"over_18": false,
"hidden": false,
"thumbnail": "self",
"edited": false,
"link_flair_css_class": null,
"author_flair_css_class": null,
"contest_mode": false,
"gilded": 0,
"downs": 0,
"brand_safe": false,
"secure_media_embed": {},
"removal_reason": null,
"author_flair_text": null,
"stickied": false,
"can_gild": true,
"thumbnail_height": null,
"parent_whitelist_status": null,
"name": "t3_7ww6bm",
"spoiler": false,
"permalink": "/r/nanocurrency/comments/7ww6bm/why_global_time_objectively_accurate_timestamps/",
"subreddit_type": "public",
"locked": false,
"hide_score": false,
"created": 1518417258,
"url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/7ww6bm/why_global_time_objectively_accurate_timestamps/",
"whitelist_status": null,
"quarantine": false,
"title": "Why global time, objectively accurate timestamps are not achievable in decentralized systems",
"created_utc": 1518388458,
"subreddit_name_prefixed": "r/nanocurrency",
"ups": 24,
"media": null,
"num_comments": 18,
"is_self": true,
"visited": false,
"mod_note": null,
"is_video": false,
"distinguished": null
}
],
"user_reports": [],
"secure_media": null,
"is_reddit_media_domain": false,
"link_flair_text": null,
"id": "7x3r45",
"banned_at_utc": null,
"mod_reason_title": null,
"view_count": null,
"archived": false,
"clicked": false,
"media_embed": {},
"report_reasons": null,
"author": "ohlookaballoon",
"num_crossposts": 0,
"saved": false,
"mod_reports": [],
"can_mod_post": false,
"is_crosspostable": true,
"pinned": false,
"score": 2,
"approved_by": null,
"over_18": false,
"hidden": false,
"thumbnail": "default",
"edited": false,
"link_flair_css_class": null,
"author_flair_css_class": "New",
"contest_mode": false,
"gilded": 0,
"downs": 0,
"brand_safe": true,
"secure_media_embed": {},
"removal_reason": null,
"author_flair_text": "Redditor for 27 days.",
"stickied": false,
"can_gild": true,
"thumbnail_height": null,
"parent_whitelist_status": "all_ads",
"name": "t3_7x3r45",
"crosspost_parent": "t3_7ww6bm",
"spoiler": false,
"permalink": "/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7x3r45/why_global_time_objectively_accurate_timestamps/",
"subreddit_type": "public",
"locked": false,
"hide_score": false,
"created": 1518496223,
"url": "https://np.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/7ww6bm/why_global_time_objectively_accurate_timestamps/",
"whitelist_status": "all_ads",
"quarantine": false,
"title": "Why global time, objectively accurate timestamps are not achievable in decentralized systems",
"created_utc": 1518467423,
"subreddit_name_prefixed": "r/CryptoCurrency",
"ups": 2,
"media": null,
"num_comments": 0,
"is_self": false,
"visited": false,
"mod_note": null,
"is_video": false,
"distinguished": null
}
},
最佳答案
这正是json.RawMessage是为了(查看文档中的解码示例)。首先解码 JSON 对象的顶层，检查类型字段，然后解码数据字段:
type Listing struct {
WhitelistStatus string `json:"whitelist_status"`
Children []Thing `json:"children"`
}
type T3 struct {
Domain string `json:"domain"`
CrosspostParentList []struct {
Domain string `json:"domain"`
} `json:"crosspost_parent_list"`
}
type Thing struct {
Kind string `json:"kind"`
Data interface{} `json:"data"`
}
func (t *Thing) UnmarshalJSON(b []byte) error {
var step1 struct {
Kind string `json:"kind"`
Data json.RawMessage `json:"data"`
}
if err := json.Unmarshal(b, &step1); err != nil {
return err
}
var step2 interface{}
switch step1.Kind {
case "Listing":
step2 = &Listing{}
case "t3":
step2 = &T3{}
default:
return errors.New("unknown kind: " + step1.Kind) // or simply ignore
}
if err := json.Unmarshal(b, step2); err != nil {
return err
}
t.Kind = step1.Kind
t.Data = step2
return nil
}
在 Playground 上试试:https://play.golang.org/p/giBVT2IWPd-
关于go - 如何解码嵌套的未知字段，我们在Stack Overflow上找到一个类似的问题： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48907574/
我正在学习如何使用Nokogiri，根据这段代码我遇到了一些问题:require'rubygems'require'mechanize'post_agent=WWW::Mechanize.newpost_page=post_agent.get('http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=230708')puts"\nabsolutepathwithtbodygivesnil"putspost_page.parser.xpath('/html/body/div/div/div/div/div/table/tbody/tr/td/div
总的来说，我对ruby还比较陌生，我正在为我正在创建的对象编写一些rspec测试用例。许多测试用例都非常基础，我只是想确保正确填充和返回值。我想知道是否有办法使用循环结构来执行此操作。不必为我要测试的每个方法都设置一个assertEquals。例如:describeitem,"TestingtheItem"doit"willhaveanullvaluetostart"doitem=Item.new#HereIcoulddotheitem.name.shouldbe_nil#thenIcoulddoitem.category.shouldbe_nilendend但我想要一些方法来使用
关闭。这个问题是opinion-based.它目前不接受答案。想要改进这个问题？更新问题，以便editingthispost可以用事实和引用来回答它.关闭4年前。Improvethisquestion我想在固定时间创建一系列低音和高音调的哔哔声。例如:在150毫秒时发出高音调的蜂鸣声在151毫秒时发出低音调的蜂鸣声200毫秒时发出低音调的蜂鸣声250毫秒的高音调蜂鸣声有没有办法在Ruby或Python中做到这一点？我真的不在乎输出编码是什么(.wav、.mp3、.ogg等等)，但我确实想创建一个输出文件。
给定这段代码defcreate@upgrades=User.update_all(["role=?","upgraded"],:id=>params[:upgrade])redirect_toadmin_upgrades_path,:notice=>"Successfullyupgradeduser."end我如何在该操作中实际验证它们是否已保存或未重定向到适当的页面和消息？ 最佳答案 在Rails3中，update_all不返回任何有意义的信息，除了已更新的记录数(这可能取决于您的DBMS是否返回该信息)。http://ar.ru
我在我的项目目录中完成了compasscreate.和compassinitrails。几个问题:我已将我的.sass文件放在public/stylesheets中。这是放置它们的正确位置吗？当我运行compasswatch时，它不会自动编译这些.sass文件。我必须手动指定文件:compasswatchpublic/stylesheets/myfile.sass等。如何让它自动运行？文件ie.css、print.css和screen.css已放在stylesheets/compiled。如何在编译后不让它们重新出现的情况下删除它们？我自己编译的.sass文件编译成compiled/t
我得到了一个包含嵌套链接的表单。编辑时链接字段为空的问题。这是我的表格:Editingkategori{:action=>'update',:id=>@konkurrancer.id})do|f|%>'Trackingurl',:style=>'width:500;'%>'Editkonkurrence'%>|我的konkurrencer模型:has_one:link我的链接模型:classLink我的konkurrancer编辑操作:defedit@konkurrancer=Konkurrancer.find(params[:id])@konkurrancer.link_attrib
我正在寻找执行以下操作的正确语法(在Perl、Shell或Ruby中):#variabletoaccessthedatalinesappendedasafileEND_OF_SCRIPT_MARKERrawdatastartshereanditcontinues. 最佳答案 Perl用__DATA__做这个:#!/usr/bin/perlusestrict;usewarnings;while(){print;}__DATA__Texttoprintgoeshere 关于ruby-如何将脚
Rackup通过Rack的默认处理程序成功运行任何Rack应用程序。例如:classRackAppdefcall(environment)['200',{'Content-Type'=>'text/html'},["Helloworld"]]endendrunRackApp.new但是当最后一行更改为使用Rack的内置CGI处理程序时，rackup给出“NoMethodErrorat/undefinedmethod`call'fornil:NilClass”:Rack::Handler::CGI.runRackApp.newRack的其他内置处理程序也提出了同样的反对意见。例如Rack
这道题是thisquestion的逆题.给定一个散列，每个键都有一个数组，例如{[:a,:b,:c]=>1,[:a,:b,:d]=>2,[:a,:e]=>3,[:f]=>4,}将其转换为嵌套哈希的最佳方法是什么{:a=>{:b=>{:c=>1,:d=>2},:e=>3,},:f=>4,} 最佳答案 这是一个迭代的解决方案，递归的解决方案留给读者作为练习:defconvert(h={})ret={}h.eachdo|k,v|node=retk[0..-2].each{|x|node[x]||={};node=node[x]}node[
在选择我想要运行操作的频率时，唯一的选项是“每天”、“每小时”和“每10分钟”。谢谢!我想为我的Rails3.1应用程序运行调度程序。 最佳答案 这不是一个优雅的解决方案，但您可以安排它每天运行，并在实际开始工作之前检查日期是否为当月的第一天。 关于ruby-如何每月在Heroku运行一次Scheduler插件？，我们在StackOverflow上找到一个类似的问题： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8692687/