Advanced JSON marshalling in Go

28 June 2019

At Algolia, I maintain open-source API clients that we publish as libraries, to map several JSON REST APIs. We are doing that for many programming languages but the one I’ve used the most recently was Go. As library authors, one of your goals is to reduce the number of dependencies we rely on. This matters for our end users - preventing dependency conflicts - and for us - reducing the support tickets generated by such conflicts. So far, we managed to provide our Go library without any transitive dependency. To be fair, we have one development dependency for our tests (stretchr/testify) and we make extensive use of the standard library.

Handle legacy fields

Mapping JSON payloads and Go structures is a simple task thanks to the encoding/json package from the standard library. However, it may become a bit more difficult when payloads and structures do not have this 1:1 mapping anymore. Sometimes, payloads may use multiple names for the same field. Picture a JSON payload for which an attribute was set according to a specific name that had to be renamed at some point.

// Legacy payload
  "name": "Anthony"

// New payload
  "firstname": "Anthony",
  "lastname": "Seure"

In this case, name attribute has been renamed into firstname. However, the API may return both payloads depending on whether the data was stored before or after that change. On Go’ side, the structure which is publicly exposed to users reflect the new format:

type Contact struct {
    Firstname string `json:"firstname"`
    Lastname  string `json:"lastname"`

Because we don’t want to expose the legacy name attribute name on our Go public API, we’ll have to write a custom deserialiser for the Contact structure. Luckily for us, we exactly know what the legacy payload looks like. Let’s use a dedicated, unexpected structure to represent it:

type legacyContact struct {
    Name string `json:"name"`

Finally, let’s unmarshal our payload into both Go representations and replace their fields where needed:

func (c *Contact) UnmarshalJSON(data []byte) error {
    var tmp legacyContact

    json.Unmarshal(data, c)
    json.Unmarshal(data, &tmp)

    if len(c.Name) == 0 {
        c.Name = legacy.Field

    return nil

This clearly has a cost in term of performances so if your code is CPU-bounded, you may want to reconsider this solution. Otherwise, this remains a concise (besides the shamelessly omitted error handling) and dependency-free solution.

From a maintenance perspective, this is one of the things I like in Go: explicit complexity.

Unmarshal unknown fields

Often times, some payload fields may not need to be reflected on the public API of the Go structures. When those fields are known, this may be quite easy, you can use the same trick we’ve just seen: unmarshal to a unexported structure, with contains all the known fields, in the UnmarshalJSON() function of your exported structure. However, it may become tedious when those fields are unknown. Even worse: how to expose them publicly? Let’s take the following JSON payload along with its Go representation:

  "name": "Anthony",
  "age": 26
type Contact struct {
    Name string `json:"name"`

In that case, the age property is unknown from the Go structure’s point of view. However, it needs to be exposed publicly. Here is the thing: we’ll now gather all unknown fields in a map that will be publicly exposed:

type Contact struct {
    Name          string                 `json:"name"`
    UnknownFields map[string]interface{} `json:"-"`

As you may see, two new things here. First, the UnknownFields field which will hold and publicly expose all unknown values from our payload. Map’ keys remain untyped. Note that the public API could be improved by writing helper functions to ease type conversions but let’s not talk about that for now. Second, the use of the - (dash) JSON tag. As per the Go documentation of the encoding/json package:

As a special case, if the field tag is "-", the field is always omitted. Note that a field with name "-" can still be generated using the tag "-,".

In other words, even though the UnknownFields field is exposed, the JSON library will ignore it entirely.

Perfect! Let’s populate it now. Similarly to what we have done to handle legacy JSON fields, the trick here is to deserialize two times the payload: one time in our structure, second time in our map:

func (c *Contact) UnmarshalJSON(data []byte) error {
    type contact Contact

    json.Unmarshal(data, (*contact)(c))
    json.Unmarshal(data, &c.UnknownFields)
    delete(c.UnknownFields, "name")

    return nil

You may wonder why the contact type alias on Contact is used. It’s simply to avoid infinite recursion of deserialisation. If we were to call json.Unmarshal on c typed as *Contact, our UnmarshalJSON() function will simply be called again… and again… and again… By introducing an intermediate type alias, recursive calls are completely bypassed: the JSON library will populate c fields as we would expect (i.e. according to the JSON tags we set).

After the two json.Unmarshal calls, all known fields have been correctly deserialized into our structure. However, both known and unknown fields are present in the map. Hence the final delete call which remove the known name field from our map of unknown fields. This seems tedious and error-prone but they are different solutions not to forget to call delete on all known fields. First, one can use reflection to extract the field names of the Contact structure and call delete for each of them. Another solution that would prevent from using reflection, is to use go generate to have the delete call generated, based on a list of known fields. This is the approach we took at my work as we fully generate the structure along with its UnmarshalJSON function anyway.

Marshal unknown fields

Having a neat public API that only exposes what is needed and documented for the end user is a utopia.

They are times where your users will want or need to use undocumented parameters. Where I work, we need to handle that case for advanced features needed by power-user. Because those features may have degraded performance when used unwisely, we purportedly do not document them. Still, for those few users who know and need to use them, we have to offer them a way, through our public API to let them inject custom fields in our JSON payload. Let’s take an example here:

type Heating struct {
    Temperature int `json:"temperature"`

However, let’s suppose our end user need to pass an undocumented but valid extra field such as the final JSON payload would look like so:

  "temperature": 42,
  "force_on": true

The easy and straightforward solution is to let the user defined their own type using composition.

type HeatingExtra struct {
    ForceOn bool `json:"force_on"`

While this solution does work, there are two main issues here. First, due to lack of structural typing in Go, instantiating composed structure is painful:

h := HeatingExtra{
    Heating: Heating{
        Temperature: 21,
    ForceOn: true,

More importantly, the fact that the user has to create a new dedicated structure every time a new parameter needs to be added is cumbersome and also not usable if the entire public API expects Heating structures anyway. The approach to solve this issue is two-fold: first, the public API needs to be completely agnostic of the extra fields we may need; second, the internal of the MarshalJSON() custom function we will write will have to handle this non-existing feature from the standard library. Regarding the public API, one approach is to expose what Dave Cheney coined as functional options in his early article from 2017. In our example, it may be implemented as such:

type Heating struct {
    Temperature  int                    `json:"temperature"`
    ExtraOptions map[string]interface{} `json:"-"`

type CustomOption struct {
    K string
    V interface{}

func NewHeating(t int, opts ...CustomOption) Heating {
    m := make(map[string]interface{})
    for _, opt := range opts {
        m[opt.K] = opt.V
    return Heating{
        Temperature:  t,
        ExtraOptions: m,

func (h Heating) MarshalJSON() ([]byte, error) {
    // TODO

func main() {
    opt := CustomOption{K: "force_on", V: true}
    h := NewHeating(21, opt)

    data, _ := json.Marshal(h)

As you see, from the caller point of view, everything is fairly easy to use. On the implementer’ side, you know have an easy way to hold user-defined options that are not known until runtime. Now let’s see how the magic happens, if any.

The overall implementation of MarshalJSON() is pretty straightforward. It goes as follows:

  1. If no CustomOption was provided, simply serialize Heating and return
  2. Otherwise, build a new type, at runtime, containing both fields from our original Heating structure…
  3. …and new fields based on the provided CustomOptions
  4. Create a new instance of this type
  5. Serialize it

And here is what it looks like:

func (h Heating) MarshalJSON() ([]byte, error) {
    // Step 1
    if len(h.ExtraOptions) == 0 {
        type heating Heating
        return json.Marshal(heating(h))

    var fields []reflect.StructField

    // Step 2
    t := reflect.TypeOf(h)
    for i := 0; i < t.NumField(); i++ {
        fields = append(fields, t.Field(i))

    // Step 3
    for k, v := range h.ExtraOptions {
        fields = append(fields, reflect.StructField{
            Name: strings.Title(k),
            Type: reflect.TypeOf(v),
            Tag:  reflect.StructTag(fmt.Sprintf(`json:"%s"`, k)),

    // Step 4
    e := reflect.New(reflect.StructOf(fields)).Elem()
    for k, v := range h.ExtraOptions {
    itf := e.Interface()

    // Step 5
    return json.Marshal(itf)

Be cautious though, according to benchmarks, we can see that there’s an important overhead using this method and the cost increases linearly with the number of options passed.

BenchmarkMarhalJSON/With_0_CustomOption(s)-8	2000000	 788 ns/op
BenchmarkMarhalJSON/With_1_CustomOption(s)-8	 300000	4321 ns/op
BenchmarkMarhalJSON/With_2_CustomOption(s)-8	 200000	5645 ns/op
BenchmarkMarhalJSON/With_3_CustomOption(s)-8	 200000	7245 ns/op