I have previously got Unmarshalling working in Scala using ScalaPB and the following marshallers:
implicit def marshaller[T <: GeneratedMessage]: ToEntityMarshaller[T] = PredefinedToEntityMarshallers.ByteArrayMarshaller.compose[T](r => r.toByteArray)
implicit def unmarshaller[T <: GeneratedMessage with GeneratedMessageCompanion[Request]](implicit companion: GeneratedMessageCompanion[Request]): FromEntityUnmarshaller[Request] = {
Unmarshaller.byteArrayUnmarshaller.map[Request](bytes => companion.parseFrom(bytes))
}
This allows my Route
to accept incoming messages of type Request
, defined as:
syntax = "proto3";
package PROTOS;
option java_package = "hydra.core.messaging.protobuf";
message RegisterRequest {
string username = 1;
optional string password = 2;
}
message Request {
string hostID = 1;
oneof requestType {
RegisterRequest registerRequest = 2;
}
}
I have added another Route
to the system, which takes in DataRequest
types. This is defined as:
syntax = "proto3";
package PROTOS;
option java_package = "hydra.core.messaging.protobuf";
message DataRequest {
string hostID = 1;
string data = 2;
}
As a result, I have modified my AKKA actors and routes to use wildcard types for the type of messages they take in and respond with, defined as:
final case class ActorRequest[T, E](request: T, replyTo: ActorRef[ActorResponse[E]])
final case class ActorResponse[T](response: T)
To reduce having duplicate code, I moved the Route
creation into the super class. The super-class Layer
looks like:
trait Marshalling extends DefaultJsonProtocol with SprayJsonSupport {
implicit def marshaller[E <: GeneratedMessage]: ToEntityMarshaller[E] = PredefinedToEntityMarshallers.ByteArrayMarshaller.compose[E](r => r.toByteArray)
implicit def unmarshaller[T <: GeneratedMessage with GeneratedMessageCompanion[T]](implicit companion: GeneratedMessageCompanion[T]): FromEntityUnmarshaller[T] = {
Unmarshaller.byteArrayUnmarshaller.map[T](bytes => companion.parseFrom(bytes))
}
}
abstract class Layer[T <: GeneratedMessage, E <: GeneratedMessage](name: String, directivePath: String)
extends CORSHandler with Marshalling {
implicit val timeout: Timeout = Timeout.create(SYSTEM.settings.config.getDuration("my-app.routes.ask-timeout"))
private var systemActor: ActorRef[ActorRequest[T, E]] = null
def createResponse(request: T): ActorResponse[E]
private def createRoutes(): Route = {
pathPrefix(HOST_ID) {
path(directivePath) {
post {
entity(as[T]) { request =>
onComplete(handle(request)) {
case Success(response) =>
complete(response.response)
case Failure(exception) => complete(InternalServerError, s"An error occurred ${exception.getMessage}")
}
}
}
}
}
}
...
}
When switching to the wildcard Unmarshaller, I get the following error:
I found:
akka.http.scaladsl.unmarshalling.Unmarshaller.
messageUnmarshallerFromEntityUnmarshaller[T](
akka.http.scaladsl.marshallers.sprayjson.SprayJsonSupport.
sprayJsonUnmarshaller[T](/* missing */summon[spray.json.RootJsonReader[T]])
)
But no implicit values were found that match type spray.json.RootJsonReader[T].
entity(as[T]) { request =>
Is there anyone who is an expert in this that can help me identify the issue? The error seems to be complaining it is not a FromRequestMarshaller
but neither was the Unmarshaller previously when the class type was defined. Any suggestions?
Minimal reproducible example: https://github.com/ritcat14/hydra_broken_marshalling
The
implicit def unmarshaller
intrait Marshalling
can't be used from theLayer
class: theunmarshaller
needs aGeneratedMessageCompanion[T]
, but theLayer
class does not have the guarantee that such a companion will be available for aT
that it would instantiate for, and therefore you get a compile error. The solution would be to add the implicit companion as a constructor parameter toclass Layer
so it can be provided to `def unmarshaller.This would be the minimal definition for
Marshalling
(the unnecessary JSON stuff cleared out, but that wasn't the cause of the issue):Then, the
Layer
class signature can capture the implicit companion:however, since the instance
cmp
isn't really needed directly in the implementation ofLayer
, this could be rewritten as: