[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-3561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ryan Skraba resolved AVRO-3561.
-------------------------------
Resolution: Duplicate
> [Python] Schema resolution fails with equivalent names
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-3561
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-3561
> Project: Apache Avro
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Ryan Skraba
> Priority: Major
>
> These schemas are equivalent and should be fully compatible:
> {code:json}
> {"type": "record", "name": "Record1", "fields": [{"type": ["null", {"type":
> "array", "items": {"type": "record", "name": "InnerRecord1", "namespace":
> "ns2", "fields": [{"type": "int", "name": "a"}]}}], "name": "f1"}]}
> {"type": "record", "name": "Record1", "fields": [{"type": ["null", {"type":
> "array", "items": {"type": "record", "name": "ns2.InnerRecord1", "fields":
> [{"type": "int", "name": "a"}]}}], "name": "f1"}]}{code}
> (Note the way the full name is specified in the {*}innerRecord1{*})
> Currently schema compatibility between the two fails because the name
> attributes don't match. In this case the fullnames are {_}identical{_}.
> In any case, the specification only needs to match the unqualified name. The
> following schema is not equivalent but should be compatible. Note the change
> in the namespace.
> {code:json}
> {"type": "record", "name": "Record1", "fields": [{"type": ["null", {"type":
> "array", "items": {"type": "record", "name": "ns3.InnerRecord1", "fields":
> [{"type": "int", "name": "a"}]}}], "name": "f1"}]}{code}
> It appears that the compatibility logic assumes that [the name attribute has
> been
> unqualified|https://github.com/apache/avro/blob/6dc6055e04188919886bd1b4ed95a7c6f4fac23e/lang/py/avro/compatibility.py#L376-L378].
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
