On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:24 PM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:18 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 8:31 AM David G. Johnston
>> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The following query produces an incorrect result. It should error (or at worse produce "false"), but it instead
produces"true" (this applies to @? too)
>> >
>> > select jsonb_path_exists('{"foo": true}'::jsonb, '$bar', '{}', false);
>>
>> Variable case is definitely broken, but I don't think other cases are
>> broken. If we're checking for existence and there is a constant, we
>> can immediately return true because constant exists indeed. That
>> logic doesn't work for variable, which could be non-existent.
>>
>> > select jsonb_path_exists('{"foo": true}'::jsonb, '"bar"', '{}', false); -- true (bar in double quotes)
>
>
> I think my issue with the constant is that the function itself is said to return whether or not the provided path
matchesthe input json. It is impossible to match the input json if there is no reference to the input json in the
jsonpathexpression. As the existing wording promises: "Checks whether the JSON path returns any item for the specified
JSONvalue" - the word item is rightly taken to mean that the path at minimum references the root (i.e., mandatory $) -
andthat any true result from exists will, if the expression is used for _match, produce the "item for the specified
JSONvalue" that was found.
>
> So I'll stand by my conclusion that the behavior of constants is buggy - though I suppose fixing the bug is probably
mostreadily accomplished by changing the definition of what behavior we are promising and fixing up the documentation
toexpress that change. In short, it is really an error to not specify "$" in your expression - but if you don't you
willsimply get a true outcome for the existence test - for backward compatibility reasons.
Thank you for explaining your point, but I can't agree with that.
Constant jsonpath expression is always returning item for the input
JSON value. Even despite the input value is ignored. This is
redundant case, but still correct.
>> > select jsonb_path_match('{"foo": true}'::jsonb, '"bar"', '{}', false); -- ERROR: single boolean result is
expected
>> > select jsonb_path_match('{"foo": true}'::jsonb, '$bar', '{"bar":"foo"}', false); -- same error as above, as
expected
>> >
>> > I expect the missing variable specification to produce jperError and the rest of the block to produce
jperNotFound. The "single boolean result expected" error seems incorrect though I'm not sure where that is coming from.
But I'm also not considering, or am even aware of, what the standard we are guided by here says should actually happen.
>>
>> I think jsonb_path_match() behaves correctly, it expects jsonpatch
>> expression to return single boolend and throws an error otherwise.
>
> Yeah, I may have mis-interpreted the meaning of the error message. Something like: "jsonpath expression must produce
asingle boolean result" would be a bit more clear.
OK, I'm not a native English speaker and can't judge about this. I
propose this should be considered separately.
BTW, what do you think about the patch?
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov