rdblue commented on code in PR #4242:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/4242#discussion_r879993074
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/avro/AvroSchemaWithTypeVisitor.java:
##########
@@ -79,11 +79,29 @@ private static <T> T visitRecord(Types.StructType struct,
Schema record, AvroSch
private static <T> T visitUnion(Type type, Schema union,
AvroSchemaWithTypeVisitor<T> visitor) {
List<Schema> types = union.getTypes();
List<T> options = Lists.newArrayListWithExpectedSize(types.size());
- for (Schema branch : types) {
- if (branch.getType() == Schema.Type.NULL) {
- options.add(visit((Type) null, branch, visitor));
- } else {
- options.add(visit(type, branch, visitor));
+
+ // simple union case
+ if (AvroSchemaUtil.isOptionSchema(union)) {
+ for (Schema branch : types) {
+ if (branch.getType() == Schema.Type.NULL) {
+ options.add(visit((Type) null, branch, visitor));
+ } else {
+ options.add(visit(type, branch, visitor));
+ }
+ }
+ } else { // complex union case
+ Preconditions.checkArgument(type instanceof Types.StructType,
+ "Cannot visit invalid Iceberg type: %s for Avro complex union type:
%s", type, union);
Review Comment:
The problem is that there can be identical branches in a union and
order-based resolution could do this incorrectly. The name mapping approach
allows this to be entirely by ID here, and the name mapping could do deeper
validation because it has child field IDs for all nested types.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
