Unable to use JSON RPC

[Karrq]

Hi, I was interested in trying this tool to make a series of requests easily reproducible or parametrized but I was stuck immediately when attempting to make a json rpc request.

Here's the sample:

POST https://rpc.flashbots.net/
{
    "id": 1,
    "jsonrpc": "2.0",
    "method": "eth_getBlockByNumber",
    "params": ["0x5E3A3F", true]
}

When running with hurl file.hurl I get the following error:

error: Parsing json
  --> file.hurl:6:14
   |
 6 |     "params": ["0x5E3A3F", true]
   |              ^ json error
   |

But I tried to verify this payload and had no issue with it, even using it in postman without any trouble... Am I missing something here?

[fabricereix]

Hello @Karrq,
For JSON parsing, we have added the check that all items in an array should have the same type.
Can you use this payload instead?

POST https://rpc.flashbots.net/
{
    "id": 1,
    "jsonrpc": "2.0",
    "method": "eth_getBlockByNumber",
    "params": ["0x5E3A3F", "true"]
}

We need to check if this extra restriction is common and really makes sense. If not we will remove it.

[fabricereix]

It seems indeed that each element in an array may be of a different type.
A unique type can be enforced with a JSON schema validation.
Thanks for reporting it, we will remove this restriction in the next release.

[Karrq]

Hi, thanks for the quick response. I tried running the payload as you suggested (btw the rpc endpoint I provided is public), and I got an error _as a response_. `{"id":1,"error":{"code":-32602,"message":"invalid argument 1: json: cannot unmarshal string into Go value of type bool"},"jsonrpc":"2.0"}` EDIT: While writing this response I saw you verified that elements in JSON arrays can be of different types. I'm surprised no other users found this before! May I sneak in a feature request? Some kind of interface in hurl for JSON-RPC? Il giorno sab 5 mar 2022 alle ore 15:44 Fabrice Reix < ***@***.***> ha scritto:

…

Hello @Karrq <https://github.com/Karrq>, For JSON parsing, we have added the check that all items in an array should have the same type. Can you use this payload instead? POST https://rpc.flashbots.net/ { "id": 1, "jsonrpc": "2.0", "method": "eth_getBlockByNumber", "params": ["0x5E3A3F", "true"] } We need to check if this extra restriction is common and really makes sense. If not we will remove it. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#495 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA6QBYZRPVTCHZK2A7HLU4TU6NXNLANCNFSM5P7WCJTA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[fabricereix]

Until the next release, you can send your exact payload with a mutiline string

POST https://rpc.flashbots.net/
```
{
    "id": 1,
    "jsonrpc": "2.0",
    "method": "eth_getBlockByNumber",
    "params": ["0x5E3A3F", true]
}
```

The JSON won't be decoded by Hurl.

I'm not familiar with JSON-RPC. What kind of feature would you like?

[fabricereix]

Hi @Karrq,
I'm closing the issue, The fix has been merged in #496

[huangjj27]

If I need to check the types of the elements in an array are the same, how do I do this?

[jcamiel]

Hi, you can use isInteger isFloat isString isCollection predicates and explicitely asserts all items:

GET http://api.foo.com

HTTP/* 200
[Asserts]
jsonpath "$.books[0]" isString
jsonpath "$.books[1]" isString
jsonpath "$.books[2]" isString

We'll improve this with in a future version an any, all none keywords,

https://hurl.dev/docs/asserting-response.html#predicates

[huangjj27]

Hi, you can use isInteger isFloat isString isCollection predicates and explicitely asserts all items:

But in the practical sense, the elements in an array usually are complex structures of the same type. It's hard to predict in such sense.

[fabricereix]

you might probably be happy with a schema validation (#543)