JSON.Net Ignore Property during deserialization

Question

I have a class set up as follows:

public class Foo {     public string string1 { get; set; }     public string string2 { get; set; }     public string string3 { get; set; } } 

I am using Json.Net to deserialize the following Json Response:

[     {         "number1": 1,         "number2": 12345678901234567890,         "number3": 3     },     {         "number1": 9,         "number2": 12345678901234567890,         "number3": 8     } ] 

Deserialization code:

string json = @"[     {         ""number1"": 1,         ""number2"": 12345678901234567890,         ""number3"": 3     },     {         ""number1"": 9,         ""number2"": 12345678901234567890,         ""number3"": 8     } ]"  List<Foo> foos = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<Foo>>(json); 

The value in number2 exceeds an Int64, but I don't really care about retrieving that value. Is there a way to cast the number2 property to a string, or fully ignore it during deserialization?

I have tried adding the [JsonConverter(typeof(string))] attribute to the string2 property, but recieve the error: Error creating System.String. I have also tried setting typeof(decimal).

I have also tried using [JsonIgnore] but that doesn't work.

Answer 1

You can use MissingMemberHandling property of the JsonSerializerSettings object.

Example usage:

var jsonSerializerSettings = new JsonSerializerSettings(); jsonSerializerSettings.MissingMemberHandling = MissingMemberHandling.Ignore;  JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<YourClass>(jsonResponse, jsonSerializerSettings); 

More info here.

Answer 2

This is a lame workaround but you could make a method to manually load the json. If it's too much data to load without an automatic deserializer just remove the nodes that you don't want. This is a lot slower though.

public static List<Foo> FromJson(string input) {     var json = JToken.Parse(input);     json["key"].Remove();     var foo = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<Foo>>(json.ToString());  } 

This is an interesting problem I wonder if anyone has a better solution for it.