[dev.icinga.com #13141] Object types oddities

[icinga-migration]

This issue has been migrated from Redmine: https://dev.icinga.com/issues/13141

Created by nlm on 2016-11-10 14:29:14 +00:00

Assignee: (none)
Status: New
Target Version: (none)
Last Update: 2016-11-10 14:29:14 +00:00 (in Redmine)

Icinga Version: 2.5.4-1
Backport?: Not yet backported
Include in Changelog: 1

---

I was coding some functions in my icinga2 configuration, when I remarked that there are some oddities in object types:

• most objects have a type field (Object, User, Type, ...)
• Array has a type ("Array")
• Dictionnary has a type field but a null type (null)
• Number, String have no type field

=> Type.type
"Type"
=> Object.type
"Type"
=> Object().type
"Object"
=> User().type
"User"
=> UserGroup().type
"UserGroup"
=> [].type
"Array"
=> {}.type
null
=> {test = 123}.type
null
=> Dictionary().type
null
=> 0.type

Invalid field access (for value of type 'Number'): 'type'
=> Number().type
^
Invalid field access (for value of type 'Number'): 'type'
=> "Hello".type

Invalid field access (for value of type 'String'): 'type'

It seems it's not intentional

[gunnarbeutner]

Maybe we should just remove the .type attribute because there's no way we can make it work for the Dictionary class.

[Al2Klimov]

I'd not remove it as that would be a breaking change, but I'd throw it out of the docs.

There's literally no use case for this – we have typeof() after all.

[Al2Klimov]

Wait as sec... there isn't anything to throw out as the doc only mentions #type for Object and the config objects, but not for any "JSON type". IMO it's not too bad that there are non-intentionally exposed things as long as they're not documented.