[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-951?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13144220#comment-13144220
]
Scott Carey commented on AVRO-951:
----------------------------------
I think we can bend the version rules for this as long as we make it very clear
in 1.6.1 release notes that this is an exception to the rule affecting only
users of the new builder code generation in the Java implementation.
> Records with field named "data" collide with new builder code from specific
> compiler
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-951
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-951
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: java
> Affects Versions: 1.6.0
> Reporter: Alex Miller
> Assignee: Doug Cutting
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.6.1
>
> Attachments: AVRO-951.patch, AVRO-951.patch
>
>
> When I updated my dependencies from 1.5.x to 1.6.0 I found that one of my
> generated specific data classes failed to compile. The schema definition is:
> {code}
> record DataResponse {
> string queryId;
> int startRow;
> boolean more;
> array<array<union {IRI, BNode, PlainLiteral, TypedLiteral,
> string, boolean, int, long, float, double,
> null} >> data;
> }
> {code}
> which I'm using to create:
> {code}
> {
> "type" : "record",
> "name" : "DataResponse",
> "fields" : [ {
> "name" : "queryId",
> "type" : "string"
> }, {
> "name" : "startRow",
> "type" : "int"
> }, {
> "name" : "more",
> "type" : "boolean"
> }, {
> "name" : "data",
> "type" : {
> "type" : "array",
> "items" : {
> "type" : "array",
> "items" : [ "IRI", "BNode", "PlainLiteral", "TypedLiteral",
> "string", "boolean", "int", "long", "float", "double", "null" ]
> }
> }
> }
> {code}
> which generates this code in the specific compiler:
> {code}
> public static class Builder extends
> org.apache.avro.specific.SpecificRecordBuilderBase<DataResponse>
> implements org.apache.avro.data.RecordBuilder<DataResponse> {
> private java.lang.CharSequence queryId;
> private int startRow;
> private boolean more;
> // *** local field named "data"
> private java.util.List<java.util.List<java.lang.Object>> data;
> // snipped some
>
> /** Creates a Builder by copying an existing DataResponse instance */
> private Builder(sherpa.protocol.DataResponse other) {
> super(sherpa.protocol.DataResponse.SCHEMA$);
> if (isValidValue(fields[0], other.queryId)) {
> // *** Call intended to go to super class data field
> queryId = (java.lang.CharSequence) data.deepCopy(fields[0].schema(),
> other.queryId);
> fieldSetFlags[0] = true;
> }
> if (isValidValue(fields[1], other.startRow)) {
> startRow = (java.lang.Integer) data.deepCopy(fields[1].schema(),
> other.startRow);
> fieldSetFlags[1] = true;
> }
> if (isValidValue(fields[2], other.more)) {
> more = (java.lang.Boolean) data.deepCopy(fields[2].schema(),
> other.more);
> fieldSetFlags[2] = true;
> }
> if (isValidValue(fields[3], other.data)) {
> data = (java.util.List<java.util.List<java.lang.Object>>)
> data.deepCopy(fields[3].schema(), other.data);
> fieldSetFlags[3] = true;
> }
> }
> {code}
> If you note the two ***'ed comments above, the first is the locally generated
> "data" field. The second is a reference to a super-class's field, also named
> data (although it's shadowed by the local data field). The super class is
> org.apache.avro.data.RecordBuilderBase.
> Seems like any of the protected fields at that point could potentially
> collide with actual record field names ("schema", "fields", "fieldSetFlags"
> would all have the same problem). Maybe if those fields were accessed via
> getters in the generated code, the local fields could shadow the super class
> without issue.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
