[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-656?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Doug Cutting updated AVRO-656:
------------------------------
Attachment: AVRO-656.patch
Here's a patch that implements the first option I proposed, way back when. In
particular:
- the spec is altered so that only a single enum or fixed is permitted in a
union. (No implementation correctly supports multiple instances of these types
in a union anyway.)
- the java implementation and tests are updated to conform
- java is also fixed so that
-- union dispatch among records correctly considers the namespace
-- type names rendered in JSON unions now include the namespace
> writing unions with multiple records, fixed or enums can choose wrong branch
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-656
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-656
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: java
> Affects Versions: 1.4.0
> Reporter: Doug Cutting
> Assignee: Doug Cutting
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
> Attachments: AVRO-656.patch, AVRO-656.patch
>
>
> According to the specification, a union may contain multiple instances of a
> named type, provided they have different names. There are several bugs in
> the Java implementation of this when writing data:
> - for record, only the short-name of the record is checked, so the branch
> for a record of the same name in a different namespace may be used by mistake
> - for enum and fixed, the name of the record is not checked, so the first
> enum or fixed in the union will always be assumed when writing. in many
> cases this may cause the wrong data to be written, potentially corrupting
> output.
> This is not a regression. This has never been implemented correctly by Java.
> Python and Ruby never check names, but rather perform a full, recursive
> validation of content.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
