Just copy this and use it. Or use the npm package.
const serialize = (value) => JSON.stringify(value, stringifyReplacer);
const deserialize = (text) => JSON.parse(text, parseReviver);
// License: CC0
function stringifyReplacer(key, value) {
if (typeof value === "object" && value !== null) {
if (value instanceof Map) {
return {
_meta: { type: "map" },
value: Array.from(value.entries()),
};
} else if (value instanceof Set) { // bonus feature!
return {
_meta: { type: "set" },
value: Array.from(value.values()),
};
} else if ("_meta" in value) {
// Escape "_meta" properties
return {
...value,
_meta: {
type: "escaped-meta",
value: value["_meta"],
},
};
}
}
return value;
}
function parseReviver(key, value) {
if (typeof value === "object" && value !== null) {
if ("_meta" in value) {
if (value._meta.type === "map") {
return new Map(value.value);
} else if (value._meta.type === "set") {
return new Set(value.value);
} else if (value._meta.type === "escaped-meta") {
// Un-escape the "_meta" property
return {
...value,
_meta: value._meta.value,
};
} else {
console.warn("Unexpected meta", value._meta);
}
}
}
return value;
}
Performance?
There is a version that is equally high quality, but has better performance (tested in Chrome and Firefox). If that matters to you, then please check it out!
https://stackoverflow.com/a/79016027/3492994
Why is this hard?It should be possible to input any kind of data, get valid JSON, and from there correctly reconstruct the input.
This means dealing with
new Map([ [{cat:1}, "value"] ])
. This means that any answer which uses Object.fromEntries
is probably wrong.new Map([ ["key", new Map([ ["nested key", "nested value"] ])] ])
. A lot of answers sidestep this by only answering the question and not dealing with anything beyond that.{"key": new Map([ ["nested key", "nested value"] ]) }
.and on top of those difficulties, the serialisation format must be unambiguous. Otherwise one cannot always reconstruct the input. The top answer has one failing test case, see below.
Hence, I wrote this improved version. It uses _meta
instead of dataType
, to make conflicts rarer and if a conflict does happen, it actually unambiguously handles it. Hopefully the code is also simple enough to easily be extended to handle other containers.
My answer does, however, not attempt to handle exceedingly cursed cases, such as a map with object properties.
A test case for my answer, which demonstrates a few edge cases
const originalValue = [
new Map([['a', {
b: {
_meta: { __meta: "cat" },
c: new Map([['d', 'text']])
}
}]]),
{ _meta: { type: "map" }}
];
console.log(originalValue);
let text = JSON.stringify(originalValue, stringifyReplacer);
console.log(text);
console.log(JSON.parse(text, parseReviver));
Accepted answer not round-tripping
The accepted answer is really lovely. However, it does not round trip when an object with a dataType
property is passed it it. That can make it dangerous to use in certain circumstances, such as
JSON.stringify(data, acceptedAnswerReplacer)
and send it over the network.This answer uses a slightly more complex scheme to fix such issues.
// Test case for the accepted answer
const originalValue = { dataType: "Map" };
const str = JSON.stringify(originalValue, replacer);
const newValue = JSON.parse(str, reviver);
console.log(originalValue, str, newValue);
// > Object { dataType: "Map" } , Map(0)
// Notice how the input was changed into something different
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4