Many systems are configured using JSON (or YAML), and there is often a need to parameterize such configuration. Examples include: AWS CloudFormation, Terraform, Google Cloud Deployment Manager, Taskcluster Tasks/Hooks, the list goes on.

This paramterization is usually accomplished with one of the following approaches:

Use of custom variable injection syntax and special rules, Rendering with a string templating engine like jinja2 or mustache prior to parsing the JSON or YAML configuration, or, Use of a general purpose programming language to generate the configuration.

Approach (1) is for example used by AWS CloudFormation and Terraform. In Terraform variables can be injected with string interpolation syntax, e.g. ${var.my_variable} , and resource objects with a count = N property are cloned N times. Drawbacks of this is that each system have its own logic and rules that you’ll have to learn. Often these are obscure, verbose and/or inconsistent, as template language design isn’t the main focus of a project like Terraform or CloudFormation.

Approach (2) is among other places used in Google Cloud Deployment Manager, it was also employed in earlier versions of .taskcluster.yml . For example in Google Cloud Deployment Manager your infrastructure configuration file is rendered using jinja2 before being parsed as YAML. Which allows you to make a parameterized infrastructure configuration. While this approach reuse existing template logic, drawbacks include the fact that after passing through the text template engine your JSON or YAML may no longer parse due to whitespace issues, commas or other terminals accidentally injected. If the template is big, this is easy to do, resulting in errors that are hard to understand and track down.

Approach (3) is for example used by vagrant where config files are written in Ruby. It’s also used in gecko where moz.build files written in Python define which source files to compile. This approach is powerful, and reuse existing established languages. Drawbacks of this approach is that you need sandboxing to read untrusted config files. This approach also binds you to a specific programming language, or at-least forces you to have an interpreter for said language installed. Finally, there can be cases where these, often imperative configuration files becomes clutter and littered with if-statements.

Introducing json-e

json-e is a language for parameterization of JSON following approach (1), which is to say you can write your json-e template as JSON, YAML or anything that translates to a JSON object structure in-memory. Then the JSON structure can be rendered with json-e, meaning interpolation of variables and evaluation of special constructs.

An example is probably the best way to understand json-e, below is a javascript example of how json-e works.

let template = { title : 'Testing ${name}' , command : [ 'go' , 'test' , { $ if : 'verbosity > 0' , then : '-v' } ], env : { GOOS : '${targetPlatorm}' , CGO_ENABLED : { $ if : 'cgo' , then : '1' , else : '0' } , BUILDID : { $eval : 'uuid()' } } } ; let context = { name : 'my-package' , verbosity : 0 , targetPlatorm : 'linux' , cgo : false , uuid : () => uuid . v4 (), } ; let result = jsone . render ( template , context ); /* * { * title: 'Testing my-package', * command: [ * 'go', 'test' * ], * env: { * GOOS: 'linux', * CGO_ENABLED: '0', * BUILDID: '3655442f-03ab-4196-a0e2-7df62b97050c' * } * } */

Most of the variable interpolation here is obvious, but constructs like {$if: E, then: A, else: B} are very powerful. Here E is an expression while A and B are templates. Depending on the expression the whole construct is replaced with either A or B , if either one of those are omitted the parent property or array index is deleted.

As evident from the example above json-e contains an entire expression language. This allows for complex conditional constructs and powerful variable injection. Aside from the expression language json-e defines a set of constructs. These are objects containing a special keyword property that always starts with $ . The conditional $if is one such construct. These constructs allows for evaluation of expressions, flattening of lists, merging of objects, mapping elements in a list and many other things.

The constructs are first interpreted after JSON parsing. Hence, you can write json-e as YAML and store it as JSON. In fact, I would recommend writing json-e using YAML as this is very elegant. For a full reference of all the constructs, built-in functions, and expression language features checkout the json-e documentation site, it even includes an interactive json-e demo tool.

Design Choices

Unlike the special constructs and syntax used in AWS CloudFormation and Terraform, json-e aim to be a general purpose JSON parameterization engine. So ideally, json-e can be reused in other projects. The design is largely guided by the following desires:

Familiarity to Python and Javascript developers,

Injection of variables after parsing JSON/YAML,

Safe rendering without need for OS-level sandboxing,

Extensibility by injection of functions as well as variables,

Avoid Turing completeness to prevent templates from looping forever,

Side-effect free results (baring side-effects in injected functions),

Implementation in multiple languages.

We wanted safe rendering because it allows for services like taskcluster-github to render untrusted templates from .taskcluster.yml files. Similarly, we wanted implementations in multiple languages to avoid being tied to specific programming language, but also to facilitate web-based tools for debugging json-e templates.

State of json-e Today

As of writing the json-e repository contains and implementation of json-e in Javascript, Python and golang, along with a large set of test cases to ensure compatibility between the implementations. Writing a json-e implementation is fairly straight forward, so new implementations are likely to show up in the future.

For those interested in the details I recommend reading about Pratt-parsers, which have made implementation of the same interpreter in 3 languages fairly easy.

Today, json-e is already used in-tree (in gecko), we use it as part of the interface for expressing actions and be triggered in the automation UI. For those interested there is the in-tree documentation and the actions.json specification. We also have plans to use json-e for a few other things including github integration and taskcluster-hooks.

As for stability we may add new construct and functions json-e in the future, but major changes are not planned. For obvious reasons we don’t want to break backwards compatibility, this have happened a few times initially, mostly to correct things that were unintended design flaws. We still have a few open issues like unicode handling during string slicing. But by now we consider json-e stable.

On a final note I would like to extend a huge thanks to the many contributors who have worked on json-e, as of writing the github repository already have commits from 12 authors.