[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2670?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17132924#comment-17132924
]
Tom Zöhner commented on AVRO-2670:
----------------------------------
Your case 3 seems to be fixed with avro 1.9.2 for the {{date}} type. If I
define the following required field:
{code:java}
{
"name" : "date",
"type" : {
"type" : "int",
"logicalType" : "date"
},
"doc" : "The date in days from the epoch on 1 January 1970."
}
{code}
The correct java code is generated:
{code:java}
/** The date in days from the epoch on 1 January 1970. */
private java.time.LocalDate date;
{code}
If I use the type {{timestamp-millis}} or {{timestamp-micros }}(on a required
long) I get the same issue you observed: the type becomes {{java.lang.Object}}.
> Inconsistent data types for logicalType = date
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-2670
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2670
> Project: Apache Avro
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: java, logical types
> Affects Versions: 1.9.1
> Reporter: Marcel Stokman
> Priority: Major
>
> When defining a date field in the avro schema the generated java class files
> contains different types based on the given types.
>
> Giving a schema that contains date's, some are optional and some required.
> {code:java}
> {
> "type": "record",
> "name": "DateData",
> "namespace": "com.keylane.ics.data",
> "fields": [
> {
> "name": "dateAsInt",
> "type": "int",
> "logicalType": "date"
> },
> {
> "name": "dateAsOptionalInt",
> "type": [
> "null",
> "int"
> ],
> "logicalType": "date"
> },
> {
> "name": "dateAsObject",
> "type": [
> {
> "type": "int",
> "logicalType": "date"
> }
> ]
> },
> {
> "name": "dateAsOptionalLocalDate",
> "type": [
> "null",
> {
> "type": "int",
> "logicalType": "date"
> }
> ]
> }
> ]
> }
> {code}
>
> The generated class file defines the 4 fields with different java types
>
> {code:java}
> @Deprecated public int dateAsInt;
> @Deprecated public java.lang.Integer dateAsOptionalInt;
> @Deprecated public java.lang.Object dateAsObject;
> @Deprecated public java.time.LocalDate dateAsOptionalLocalDate;
> {code}
>
> We would prefer to have the type as a LocalDate, so that case 3 and 4 give
> the same field definition.
>
> Is this a bug or should the schema definition be different (and how)?
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
