mirror/json-c
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/json-c/json-c.git synced 2026-03-30 18:39:07 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

In the json_tokener_state_number case, explicitly adjust what "number" characters are allowed based on the exact micro-state that we're in, and check for invalid following characters in a different way, to allow a valid json_type_number object to be returned at the top level.

Browse Source 
This causes previously failing strings like "123-456" to return a valid json_object with the appropriate value.  If you care about the trailing content, call json_tokener_parse_ex() and check the parse end point with json_tokener_get_parse_end().
This commit is contained in:
Eric Haszlakiewicz
2020-06-29 02:14:26 +00:00
parent 6eac6986c9
commit f23486a321
6 changed files with 92 additions and 50 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

42
tests/test_parse.c
View File

@@ -141,16 +141,18 @@ static void test_basic_parse()
single_basic_parse("12", 0);
single_basic_parse("12.3", 0);
single_basic_parse("12.3.4", 0); /* non-sensical, returns null */
/* was returning (int)2015 before patch, should return null */
single_basic_parse("2015-01-15", 0);
/* ...but this works. It's rather inconsistent, and a future major release
* should change the behavior so it either always returns null when extra
* bytes are present (preferred), or always return object created from as much
* as was able to be parsed.
/* Even though, when using json_tokener_parse() there's no way to
* know when there is more data after the parsed object,
* an object is successfully returned anyway (in some cases)
*/
single_basic_parse("12.3.4", 0);
single_basic_parse("2015-01-15", 0);
single_basic_parse("12.3xxx", 0);
single_basic_parse("12.3{\"a\":123}", 0);
single_basic_parse("12.3\n", 0);
single_basic_parse("12.3 ", 0);
single_basic_parse("{\"FoO\" : -12.3E512}", 0);
single_basic_parse("{\"FoO\" : -12.3e512}", 0);
@@ -368,7 +370,10 @@ struct incremental_step
{"[0e-]", -1, -1, json_tokener_success, 1},
{"[0e-]", -1, 4, json_tokener_error_parse_number, 1, JSON_TOKENER_STRICT},
{"0e+-", 5, 3, json_tokener_error_parse_number, 1},
/* You might expect this to fail, but it won't because
it's a valid partial parse; note the char_offset: */
{"0e+-", 5, 3, json_tokener_success, 1},
{"0e+-", 5, 3, json_tokener_error_parse_number, 1, JSON_TOKENER_STRICT},
{"[0e+-]", -1, 4, json_tokener_error_parse_number, 1},
/* Similar tests for other kinds of objects: */
@@ -447,11 +452,22 @@ struct incremental_step
{"{\"a\":1}{\"b\":2}", 15, 7, json_tokener_success, 0},
{&"{\"a\":1}{\"b\":2}"[7], 8, 7, json_tokener_success, 1},
/* Some bad formatting. Check we get the correct error status
* XXX this means we can't have two numbers in the incremental parse
* XXX stream with the second one being a negative number!
*/
{"2015-01-15", 10, 4, json_tokener_error_parse_number, 1},
/*
* Though this may seem invalid at first glance, it
* parses as three separate numbers, 2015, -1 and -15
* Of course, simply pasting together a stream of arbitrary
* positive numbers won't work, since there'll be no way to
* tell where in e.g. "2015015" the next number stats, so
* a reliably parsable stream must not include json_type_int
* or json_type_double objects without some other delimiter.
* e.g. whitespace
*/
{&"2015-01-15"[0], 11, 4, json_tokener_success, 1},
{&"2015-01-15"[4], 7, 3, json_tokener_success, 1},
{&"2015-01-15"[7], 4, 3, json_tokener_success, 1},
{&"2015 01 15"[0], 11, 5, json_tokener_success, 1},
{&"2015 01 15"[4], 7, 4, json_tokener_success, 1},
{&"2015 01 15"[7], 4, 3, json_tokener_success, 1},
/* Strings have a well defined end point, so we can stop at the quote */
{"\"blue\"", -1, -1, json_tokener_success, 0},