Kotan Code 枯淡コード

In search of simple, elegant code

Menu Close

Complex JSON Handling in Go

In a recent blog post, I showed a fairly naive and contrived microservice example – the equivalent of a RESTful “hello world”. While this example may be helpful in getting some people started, it doesn’t really represent the real world. Yesterday, while spilling my Go language newbsauce all over my colleagues, I ran into an interesting problem that happens more often than you might think.

In most samples involving de-serializing a JSON response from some server, you usually see a fixed schema. In other words, you know ahead of time the expected shape of the reply, even if that means you expect some of the fields to be missing or nullable. A common pattern, however, is for an API to return some kind of generic response object as a wrapper around an optional payload.

Let’s assume you’ve got an API that exposes multiple URLs that allow you to provision different kinds of resources. Every time you POST to a resource collection, you get back some generic JSON wrapper that includes two fields: status  and data. The status field indicates whether your operation succeeded, and, if it did succeed, the data field will contain information about the thing you provisioned. Since the API is responsible for different kinds of resources, the schema of the data field may vary.

While this approach makes the job of the server/API developer easier, and provides a very consistent way of getting at the “outer” information, this generally requires clients to make 2 passes at de-serialization or un-marshaling.

First, let’s take a look at what a wrapper pattern might look like as JSON-annotated Go structs:

// GenericServerResponse - wrapper for all responses from apocalypse server.
type GenericServerResponse struct {
      //Status returns a string indicating success or failure
      Status string `json:"status"`
      //Data holds the payload of the response
      Data interface{} `json:"data,omitempty"`      

// ZombieApocalypseOutpost - one possibility for contents of the Data field
// in a generic server response.
type ZombieApocalypseOutpost struct {
    Name        string    `json:"name"`
    Latitude    float32   `json:"latitude"`
    Longitude   float32   `json:"longitude"`
    Status      string    `json:"status"`

While this example shows one possibility for the contents of the Data field, this pattern usually makes sense when there are multiple possibilities. For example, we could have one resource that provisions zombie apocalypse outposts, and another resource that provisions field artillery, where the struct inside the Data field would be something like a FieldArtillery struct, but the outer wrapper stays the same regardless.

First, let’s take a look at how the server might create a payload like this in a method rigged up to an HTTP handler function (I show how to set up HTTP handlers in my previous blog post):

func outpostProvisioner(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    // check r.Method for POST
    outpost := ZombieApocalypseOutpost{Name:"Outpost Alpha",Status:"Safe",
      Latitude:37.323011, Longitude:-122.032252}
    response := GenericServerResponse{Status:"success", Data: outpost}
    b2, err := json.Marshal(response)
    if err != nil {

Note that on the server side we can usually get away with a single marshaling pass because we’re the ones deciding the contents of the Data field, so we know the structure we want. The client, on the other hand, likely needs to perform some conditional logic to figure out what schema applies to the wrapped payload.

You can’t use runtime typecasting tricks in Go because it doesn’t do runtime typecasting the way other languages like Java or C# might do. When we define something as interface{} like we did with the Data field, that looks like calling it Object on the surface, but as I said – we can’t typecast from interface{} to a struct.

What I can do is take advantage of the fact that we already have marshal/unmarshal capabilities in Go. What follows may not be the best, most idiomatic way to do it, but it seems to work out nicely.

  URL := "http://localhost:8080/outposts/"

  r, _ := http.Get(URL)
  response, _ := ioutil.ReadAll(r.Body)

  var responseMessage GenericServerResponse
  err := json.Unmarshal(response, &responseMessage)
  if err != nil {
  var outpost ZombieApocalypseOutpost
  b, err := json.Marshal(responseMessage.Data)
  err = json.Unmarshal(b, &outpost)


First, we grab the raw payload from the server (which is just hosting the method I listed above). Once we’ve got the raw payload, we can unmarshal the outer or wrapper message (the GenericServerResponse JSON-annotated struct). At this point, the Data field is of type interface{} which really means we know nothing about it. Internally one can assume that the JSON unmarshalling code probably produced some kind of map, but I don’t want to deal with the low-level stuff. So, I marshal the Data field which gives me a byte array. Conveniently, a byte array is exactly what the unmarshal method expects. So I produce a byte array and then decode that byte array into the ZombieApocalypseOutpost struct.

This may seem like a little bit of added complexity on the client side, but there is actually a valuable tradeoff here. We gain the advantage of dealing with virtually all of an APIs resources using the same wrapper message, which greatly simplifies our client code. Only when we actually need the data inside the wrapper do we need to crack it open and perform the second pass, which can also be hidden behind a simple library.

I used to cringe every time I saw this pattern because I’m not a fan of black box data. If the inside of the Data field can vary in schema, then you are at the mercy of the API provider to insulate you from changes to the inner data. However, you’re no more a potential victim of breaking changes using this pattern than you would be without the wrapper.

So, in short, if you trust the API provider using this wrapper pattern, it can actually be a very convenient way to standardize on a microservice communication protocol.