Allow custom JsonNode implementations

[marschall]

Fixes #3699

[marschall]

This was already working before, this test just verifies it.

[cowtowncoder]

Ok, change itself is fine. One thing on test: it'd be great to have something bit more compact if possible, looks like there's a lot of boilerplate copied code. I assume this is due to this being a real use case (one where delegation is needed); but since test really does not exercise much of it a smaller subset might work?

That is: could you just trim custom impls down to minimum needed for test. Not delegating all calls.
And with that, can (and should) embed them as static classes in test class itself to keep things nice & tidy.

[marschall]

Ok, change itself is fine. One thing on test: it'd be great to have something bit more compact if possible, looks like there's a lot of boilerplate copied code. I assume this is due to this being a real use case (one where delegation is needed); but since test really does not exercise much of it a smaller subset might work?

That is: could you just trim custom impls down to minimum needed for test. Not delegating all calls. And with that, can (and should) embed them as static classes in test class itself to keep things nice & tidy.

Even when extending from BaseJsonNode the JsonNode API is quite large and a lot of methods have to be implemented just to get the code to compile. I changed many methods to instead be empty or return a hard coded result and made them inner classes.

Changes made

[cowtowncoder]

Even when extending from BaseJsonNode the JsonNode API is quite large and a lot of methods have to be implemented just to get the code to compile. I changed many methods to instead be empty or return a hard coded result and made them inner classes.

Ah ok. Thank you for explanation that makes sense.