KITFORMA · EDITORIAL ANSWER
Why does an immutable DTO fail constructor binding despite matching JSON names?
KitForma editorial guide. Constructor parameter binding follows the serializer’s member-binding rules; a JSON rename alone does not mean any arbitrary parameter name will bind to that member.
Step-by-step answer
Constructor parameter binding follows the serializer’s member-binding rules; a JSON rename alone does not mean any arbitrary parameter name will bind to that member.
Align constructor parameter names and types with the relevant CLR properties and apply JsonConstructor deliberately where supported. Keep JsonPropertyName for the external schema, and test the interaction instead of assuming the wire name replaces every internal match rule. Avoid broad mutable setters solely to bypass an unclear constructor contract.
Deserialize a minimal DTO with a renamed JSON property and assert its immutable value. Check the targeted runtime’s constructor accessibility rules. A constructor running successfully also does not establish domain validity; validate required ranges and relationships explicitly.
Sources and verification
Sources checked:
Scope: This editorial guide is based on the cited sources and tool behavior. A forum question or a query observed for our site does not establish market search volume, low competition, guaranteed rankings or inadequate answers elsewhere.
This editorial answer was prepared by KitForma with AI assistance. It is not presented as a real member question or an independent user review. Check the sources and the result with your own file; report corrections in the discussion.