CodexBloom - Programming Q&A Platform

Handling deeply nested JSON objects in Python with dynamic keys

👀 Views: 1 đŸ’Ŧ Answers: 1 📅 Created: 2025-06-01
python json data-structures Python

I'm converting an old project and I'm converting an old project and I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm working with an scenario while trying to access values from a deeply nested JSON object in Python where the keys are not static. I have a JSON structure that looks something like this: ```json { "user": { "details": { "name": "John", "age": 30 }, "preferences": { "theme": "dark", "notifications": { "email": true, "sms": false } } } } ``` The scenario arises when I want to access values dynamically based on user input. For instance, if a user specifies that they want the value of `user.preferences.notifications.email`, I want to retrieve it without hardcoding the keys. I've tried using a recursive function to traverse the JSON structure: ```python import json def get_value(data, keys): for key in keys: data = data.get(key, {}) return data json_data = '''{ "user": { "details": { "name": "John", "age": 30 }, "preferences": { "theme": "dark", "notifications": { "email": true, "sms": false } } } }''' parsed_json = json.loads(json_data) keys = ['user', 'preferences', 'notifications', 'email'] value = get_value(parsed_json, keys) print(value) ``` However, I'm getting the output as an empty dictionary `{}` when I try to access deeper properties like `user.preferences.notifications.email`. I suspect that it's because my function isn't handling the case where a key is missing correctly. I initially thought returning an empty dictionary would suffice, but it seems like I'm not traversing the structure as expected. How can I modify this function to handle such cases more effectively? Is there a more efficient way to achieve this without risking errors or performance optimization, especially with larger JSON objects? Any insights would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance! This is for a application running on Ubuntu 22.04. Am I missing something obvious?