[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1827?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15245722#comment-15245722
]
Jakub Kahovec commented on AVRO-1827:
-------------------------------------
Thank you [~rdblue] for your response. I've added a new patch including tests
and one additional fix. As we need this functionality fixed as soon as possible
I'd like to ask what would be the timespan of releasing a new artifact
including this patch and also whether would be possible to have this patch
applied and release also for branches 1.7 and 1.8 as we currently use them in
out production environment. Thanks a lot. Jakub
> Handling correctly optional fields when converting Protobuf to Avro
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-1827
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1827
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 1.7.7, 1.8.0
> Reporter: Jakub Kahovec
> Attachments: AVRO-1827.patch, AVRO-1827.patch
>
>
> Hello,
> as of the current implementation of converting protobuf files into avro
> format, protobuf optional fields are being given default values in the avro
> schema if not specified explicitly.
> So for instance when the protobuf field is defined as
> {quote}
> optional int64 fieldInt64 = 1;
> {quote}
> in the avro schema it appears as
> {quote}
> "name" : "fieldInt64",
> "type" : "long",
> "default" : 0
> {quote}
> The problem with this implementation is that we are losing information about
> whether the field was present or not in the original protobuf, as when we ask
> for this field's value in avro we will be given the default value.
> What I'm proposing instead is that if the field in the protobuf is defined as
> optional and has no default value then the generated avro schema type will us
> a union comprising the matching type and null type with default value null.
> It is going to look like this:
> {quote}
> "name" : "fieldIn64",
> "type" : [ "null", "long" ],
> "default" : null
> {quote}
> I'm aware that is a breaking change but I think that is the proper way how to
> handle optional fields.
> I've also created a patch which fixes the conversion
> Jakub
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
