Parsing potentially nonexistant JSON fields in JavaScript
$begingroup$
Context: I'm currently toying with the Google Geocode API to break down address strings into a more machine-friendly format. The problem is that neither the user input or API output are 100% consistent, and I would receive less entries in the JSON response than expected. For example, requesting "Times Square NY" gives me 6 address components
"address_components" : [
{
"long_name" : "Manhattan",
"short_name" : "Manhattan",
"types" : [ "political", "sublocality", "sublocality_level_1" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "New York",
"types" : [ "locality", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York County",
"short_name" : "New York County",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_2", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "NY",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_1", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "United States",
"short_name" : "US",
"types" : [ "country", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "10036",
"short_name" : "10036",
"types" : [ "postal_code" ]
}
But, for some reason, "Times Circle NY" gives me 8 address components (notice, for example, how "Times Square NY" does not contain a route entry):
{
"long_name" : "10",
"short_name" : "10",
"types" : [ "street_number" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "Columbus Circle",
"short_name" : "Columbus Cir",
"types" : [ "route" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "Manhattan",
"short_name" : "Manhattan",
"types" : [ "political", "sublocality", "sublocality_level_1" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "New York",
"types" : [ "locality", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York County",
"short_name" : "New York County",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_2", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "NY",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_1", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "United States",
"short_name" : "US",
"types" : [ "country", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "10019",
"short_name" : "10019",
"types" : [ "postal_code" ]
}
My code: To work with the JSON in a more reasonable format, for ex. getting rid of the short_name or accessing a field by component type, I've written an object constructor that goes like this:
class Address {
constructor(googleJson) {
try {
this.state= googleJson["results"][0]["address_components"].filter(el => JSON.stringify(el["types"]) === JSON.stringify(["administrative_area_level_1", "political"]))[0]["short_name"];
}
catch (e) {
this.state= "";
}
try {
this.city= googleJson["results"][0]["address_components"].filter(el => JSON.stringify(el["types"]) === JSON.stringify(["administrative_area_level_2", "political"]))[0]["long_name"];
}
catch (e) {
this.city= "";
}
try {
this.lat = googleJson["results"][0]["geometry"]["location"]["lat"].toString();
}
catch (e) {
this.lat = "";
}
// And so on...
And it works perfectly fine, does its job, but half of my code is just these try/catch pairs. Is there any smarter way to attempt to read multiple potentially empty JSON fields without so much code repetition?
Also, since I'm here, I found the filter I wrote inside each try/catch to be quite legible, but I fear the constructor as a whole would be $O(n times m)$. What other way could I read the JSON in $O(n + m)$ and maintain legibility?
javascript json google-maps
asked 1 hour ago
MagmaganMagmagan
61
New contributor
Magmagan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Context: I'm currently toying with the Google Geocode API to break down address strings into a more machine-friendly format. The problem is that neither the user input or API output are 100% consistent, and I would receive less entries in the JSON response than expected. For example, requesting "Times Square NY" gives me 6 address components
"address_components" : [
{
"long_name" : "Manhattan",
"short_name" : "Manhattan",
"types" : [ "political", "sublocality", "sublocality_level_1" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "New York",
"types" : [ "locality", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York County",
"short_name" : "New York County",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_2", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "NY",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_1", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "United States",
"short_name" : "US",
"types" : [ "country", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "10036",
"short_name" : "10036",
"types" : [ "postal_code" ]
}
But, for some reason, "Times Circle NY" gives me 8 address components (notice, for example, how "Times Square NY" does not contain a route entry):
{
"long_name" : "10",
"short_name" : "10",
"types" : [ "street_number" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "Columbus Circle",
"short_name" : "Columbus Cir",
"types" : [ "route" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "Manhattan",
"short_name" : "Manhattan",
"types" : [ "political", "sublocality", "sublocality_level_1" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "New York",
"types" : [ "locality", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York County",
"short_name" : "New York County",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_2", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "NY",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_1", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "United States",
"short_name" : "US",
"types" : [ "country", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "10019",
"short_name" : "10019",
"types" : [ "postal_code" ]
}
My code: To work with the JSON in a more reasonable format, for ex. getting rid of the short_name or accessing a field by component type, I've written an object constructor that goes like this:
class Address {
constructor(googleJson) {
try {
this.state= googleJson["results"][0]["address_components"].filter(el => JSON.stringify(el["types"]) === JSON.stringify(["administrative_area_level_1", "political"]))[0]["short_name"];
}
catch (e) {
this.state= "";
}
try {
this.city= googleJson["results"][0]["address_components"].filter(el => JSON.stringify(el["types"]) === JSON.stringify(["administrative_area_level_2", "political"]))[0]["long_name"];
}
catch (e) {
this.city= "";
}
try {
this.lat = googleJson["results"][0]["geometry"]["location"]["lat"].toString();
}
catch (e) {
this.lat = "";
}
// And so on...
And it works perfectly fine, does its job, but half of my code is just these try/catch pairs. Is there any smarter way to attempt to read multiple potentially empty JSON fields without so much code repetition?
Also, since I'm here, I found the filter I wrote inside each try/catch to be quite legible, but I fear the constructor as a whole would be $O(n times m)$. What other way could I read the JSON in $O(n + m)$ and maintain legibility?
javascript json google-maps
asked 1 hour ago
MagmaganMagmagan
61
New contributor
Magmagan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Context: I'm currently toying with the Google Geocode API to break down address strings into a more machine-friendly format. The problem is that neither the user input or API output are 100% consistent, and I would receive less entries in the JSON response than expected. For example, requesting "Times Square NY" gives me 6 address components
"address_components" : [
{
"long_name" : "Manhattan",
"short_name" : "Manhattan",
"types" : [ "political", "sublocality", "sublocality_level_1" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "New York",
"types" : [ "locality", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York County",
"short_name" : "New York County",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_2", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "NY",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_1", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "United States",
"short_name" : "US",
"types" : [ "country", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "10036",
"short_name" : "10036",
"types" : [ "postal_code" ]
}
But, for some reason, "Times Circle NY" gives me 8 address components (notice, for example, how "Times Square NY" does not contain a route entry):
{
"long_name" : "10",
"short_name" : "10",
"types" : [ "street_number" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "Columbus Circle",
"short_name" : "Columbus Cir",
"types" : [ "route" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "Manhattan",
"short_name" : "Manhattan",
"types" : [ "political", "sublocality", "sublocality_level_1" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "New York",
"types" : [ "locality", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York County",
"short_name" : "New York County",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_2", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "NY",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_1", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "United States",
"short_name" : "US",
"types" : [ "country", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "10019",
"short_name" : "10019",
"types" : [ "postal_code" ]
}
My code: To work with the JSON in a more reasonable format, for ex. getting rid of the short_name or accessing a field by component type, I've written an object constructor that goes like this:
class Address {
constructor(googleJson) {
try {
this.state= googleJson["results"][0]["address_components"].filter(el => JSON.stringify(el["types"]) === JSON.stringify(["administrative_area_level_1", "political"]))[0]["short_name"];
}
catch (e) {
this.state= "";
}
try {
this.city= googleJson["results"][0]["address_components"].filter(el => JSON.stringify(el["types"]) === JSON.stringify(["administrative_area_level_2", "political"]))[0]["long_name"];
}
catch (e) {
this.city= "";
}
try {
this.lat = googleJson["results"][0]["geometry"]["location"]["lat"].toString();
}
catch (e) {
this.lat = "";
}
// And so on...
And it works perfectly fine, does its job, but half of my code is just these try/catch pairs. Is there any smarter way to attempt to read multiple potentially empty JSON fields without so much code repetition?
Also, since I'm here, I found the filter I wrote inside each try/catch to be quite legible, but I fear the constructor as a whole would be $O(n times m)$. What other way could I read the JSON in $O(n + m)$ and maintain legibility?
javascript json google-maps
asked 1 hour ago
MagmaganMagmagan
61
New contributor
Magmagan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Context: I'm currently toying with the Google Geocode API to break down address strings into a more machine-friendly format. The problem is that neither the user input or API output are 100% consistent, and I would receive less entries in the JSON response than expected. For example, requesting "Times Square NY" gives me 6 address components
"address_components" : [
{
"long_name" : "Manhattan",
"short_name" : "Manhattan",
"types" : [ "political", "sublocality", "sublocality_level_1" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "New York",
"types" : [ "locality", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York County",
"short_name" : "New York County",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_2", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "NY",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_1", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "United States",
"short_name" : "US",
"types" : [ "country", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "10036",
"short_name" : "10036",
"types" : [ "postal_code" ]
}
But, for some reason, "Times Circle NY" gives me 8 address components (notice, for example, how "Times Square NY" does not contain a route entry):
{
"long_name" : "10",
"short_name" : "10",
"types" : [ "street_number" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "Columbus Circle",
"short_name" : "Columbus Cir",
"types" : [ "route" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "Manhattan",
"short_name" : "Manhattan",
"types" : [ "political", "sublocality", "sublocality_level_1" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "New York",
"types" : [ "locality", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York County",
"short_name" : "New York County",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_2", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "New York",
"short_name" : "NY",
"types" : [ "administrative_area_level_1", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "United States",
"short_name" : "US",
"types" : [ "country", "political" ]
},
{
"long_name" : "10019",
"short_name" : "10019",
"types" : [ "postal_code" ]
}
My code: To work with the JSON in a more reasonable format, for ex. getting rid of the short_name or accessing a field by component type, I've written an object constructor that goes like this:
class Address {
constructor(googleJson) {
try {
this.state= googleJson["results"][0]["address_components"].filter(el => JSON.stringify(el["types"]) === JSON.stringify(["administrative_area_level_1", "political"]))[0]["short_name"];
}
catch (e) {
this.state= "";
}
try {
this.city= googleJson["results"][0]["address_components"].filter(el => JSON.stringify(el["types"]) === JSON.stringify(["administrative_area_level_2", "political"]))[0]["long_name"];
}
catch (e) {
this.city= "";
}
try {
this.lat = googleJson["results"][0]["geometry"]["location"]["lat"].toString();
}
catch (e) {
this.lat = "";
}
// And so on...
And it works perfectly fine, does its job, but half of my code is just these try/catch pairs. Is there any smarter way to attempt to read multiple potentially empty JSON fields without so much code repetition?
Also, since I'm here, I found the filter I wrote inside each try/catch to be quite legible, but I fear the constructor as a whole would be $O(n times m)$. What other way could I read the JSON in $O(n + m)$ and maintain legibility?
javascript json google-maps
javascript json google-maps
asked 1 hour ago
MagmaganMagmagan
61
New contributor
Magmagan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
MagmaganMagmagan
61
New contributor
Magmagan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
MagmaganMagmagan
61
New contributor
Magmagan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
MagmaganMagmagan
61
asked 1 hour ago
MagmaganMagmagan
61
61
New contributor
Magmagan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Magmagan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Magmagan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Magmagan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f213771%2fparsing-potentially-nonexistant-json-fields-in-javascript%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Magmagan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Magmagan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Magmagan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Magmagan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f213771%2fparsing-potentially-nonexistant-json-fields-in-javascript%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
