[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4367?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17397499#comment-17397499
]
Josh Elser commented on CALCITE-4367:
-------------------------------------
[~john.bod...@gmail.com] thanks for coming back and keeping us honest on the
documentation. Could you open a new Jira issue for this extra correction? Happy
to get it fixed, but it helps us with tracking to get new issues filed (to
avoid difficult questions about when fixes were actually made).
> Incorrect documentation for Avatica JSON request/response signatures
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-4367
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4367
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: avatica
> Reporter: John Bodley
> Assignee: Josh Elser
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: avatica-1.18.0
>
> Time Spent: 2h 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I noticed a few inconsistencies between what is documented in the [Avatica
> JSON Reference|https://calcite.apache.org/avatica/docs/json_reference.html]
> and what the Avatica JDBC driver provides, specifically:
> # The {{DatabasePropertyRequest}} was missing the {{connection_id}} field in
> the example signature.
> # `RpcMetadata` is actually a response as opposed to a miscellaneous type per
> [here|https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica/blob/4b7eee5bf430b916c7c07897b6f60d2b6b6dabb7/core/src/main/protobuf/responses.proto#L114-L116]
> and thus requires a {{response}} field. Note I'm not certain if this was
> intentional, i.e., it being a response, however it it is it seems that it
> should be renamed to {{RpcMetadataResponse}} for consistency.
> # The supplied {{ConnectionProperties}} contains an undocumented {{dirty}}
> field ({{is_dirty}} for protobuf).
> # For the {{SchemasRequest}} the {{catalog}} and {{schemaPattern}} are
> optional rather than required.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
