[Serializer] enable JSON_PRESERVE_ZERO_FRACTION by default #47202
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
this makes json output float values that happen to be full numbers with a `.0`, so `4.0` or `0.0` instead of `4` resp `0`. that in turn helps when consuming the json in a type-safe language.
dunglas
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2022
nicolas-grekas
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2022
fabpot
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2022
|
Thank you @dbu. |
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
this makes json output float values that happen to be full numbers with a
.0, so4.0or0.0instead of4resp0. that in turn helps when consuming the json in a type-safe language.In #47183, @nicolas-grekas said that we should enable the preserve zero fraction flag by default in the serializer.
I am a bit unsure if we should consider this a BC break, as it does change the output of JSON data. Should it be considered a bugfix against 6.1, a feature against 6.2 or a BC break that has to wait until 7.0?