Yes, it’s possible.
But my concern is the lack of common approach. Here a few examples:
1) Correlate and Join both explains joinType as lowerName of enum’s value,
hence it could be simply restored by relInput.getEnum("joinType",
JoinRelType.class)
@Override public RelWriter explainTerms(RelWriter pw) {
return super.explainTerms(pw)
.item("joinType", joinType.lowerName)
...
}
2) MultiJoin uses similar approach, but instead of lowerName uses original
enum’s name
@Override public RelWriter explainTerms(RelWriter pw) {
List<String> joinTypeNames = new ArrayList<>();
...
for (int i = 0; i < inputs.size(); i++) {
joinTypeNames.add(joinTypes.get(i).name());
...
}
return pw.item("joinFilter", joinFilter)
...
.item("joinTypes", joinTypeNames)
...
}
3) TableModify uses RelEnumTypes.fromEnum(getOperation())) to explain operation
type, but uses input.getEnum("operation", Operation.class) to restore it,
whereas there is RelEnumTypes#toEnum(String) method
4) Spool explains both types as enum value, and probably will fail during
serialisation to json cause
org.apache.calcite.rel.externalize.RelJson#toJson(java.lang.Object)
doesn’t know how to handle enum
@Override public RelWriter explainTerms(RelWriter pw) {
return super.explainTerms(pw)
.item("readType", readType)
.item("writeType", writeType);
}
Does it make any sense to unify this?
--
Regards,
Konstantin Orlov
> On 8 Jun 2021, at 22:03, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Including class names in serialized JSON makes me nervous. It is a common
> attack surface. Could we, say, include the name of the enum (without package
> name) and map it to a list of supported Enums?
>
>> On Jun 8, 2021, at 9:20 AM, Konstantin Orlov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, folks!
>>
>> We have a problem with Spool node deserialisation. Currently it explains
>> both readType and writeType fields as Enum,
>> thus those fields being serialized as map:
>>
>> {
>> "id":"2",
>> "relOp”:"MyTableSpool",
>> "readType":{
>> "class":"org.apache.calcite.rel.core.Spool$Type",
>> "name":"LAZY"
>> },
>> "writeType":{
>> "class":"org.apache.calcite.rel.core.Spool$Type",
>> "name":"EAGER"
>> }
>> }
>>
>> When deserializing, we use RelInput#getEnum which expects the provided tag
>> being a string value representing the enum's value name.
>>
>> Should we follow the way used for serialization of JoinRelType within the
>> Join node (serialize the enum value as its name in lower case)? Here is
>> example:
>>
>> {
>> "id":"4",
>> "relOp”:"MyJoin",
>> "condition":{
>> "op":{
>> "name":">",
>> "kind":"SqlKind#GREATER_THAN",
>> "syntax":"SqlSyntax#BINARY"
>> },
>> "operands":[
>> {
>> "input":1,
>> "name":"$1"
>> },
>> {
>> "input":4,
>> "name":"$4"
>> }
>> ]
>> },
>> "joinType":"inner",
>> "variablesSet":[0],
>> "correlationVariables":[0],
>> "inputs":["0","3"]
>> }
>>
>> Or it's better to get the RelInput being able to deserialize enum
>> represented as map as well?
>>
>> Personally I prefer the first option cause the type of the enum is known for
>> sure, so it's better not to waste the time to (de-)serialize it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Konstantin Orlov
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
