[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1836?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15267079#comment-15267079
]
Ryan Blue commented on AVRO-1836:
---------------------------------
[[email protected]], I think the [Schema.Parser
javadoc|https://avro.apache.org/docs/1.8.0/api/java/org/apache/avro/io/parsing/Parser.html]
is pretty clear that the parser instance keeps references like this:
bq. A parser for JSON-format schemas. Each named schema parsed with a parser is
added to the names known to the parser so that subsequently parsed schemas may
refer to it by name.
Do you think we should change that? What would have helped you in this case?
> avro schema compatibility checking does not work for records.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-1836
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1836
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.8.0
> Reporter: Yan Cui
> Priority: Blocker
>
> Hi Guys,
> We found a problem on avro 1.8.0 when calling avro's compatibility checking.
> Specifically, we used the function checkReaderWriterCompatibility,
> it works with no problem when we provides simple schema, like
> oldschema={"type":"int"} schema={"type":"long"}, but when we use complicated
> schema, like
> oldschema={"type":"record","name":"twitter","fields":[{"name":"username","type":"string"}]}
> schema={"type":"record","name":"twitter","fields":[{"name":"username","type":"string"}]}
> it reports that record name(twitter in this case) cannot be redefined.
> When one rename the second schema, it told me the two schema are not
> compatible. Actually, for the completed case, oldschema and schema are
> exactly the same, the output is expected to be compatible.
> Do you guys have any ideas about this?
> Thanks, Yan
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
