red (despite the fact that under protobuf3 all fields are optional)
>>
>>
>>
>> Point 3 is more likely an issue with the protobuf to BEAM schema
>> generation, however I present it here as it would be useful to capture as
>> part of an end-to-end test suite.
>&g
Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Rob
>
> *From:* Chamikara Jayalath [mailto:chamik...@google.com]
> *Sent:* 15 July 2020 16:36
> *To:* dev
> *Subject:* Re: NanosInstant not being recognised by BigQueryIO.Write
>
>
>
>
> *
> &
I present it here as it would be useful to capture as part of an
end-to-end test suite.
Kind regards,
Rob
From: Chamikara Jayalath [mailto:chamik...@google.com]
Sent: 15 July 2020 16:36
To: dev
Subject: Re: NanosInstant not being recognised by BigQueryIO.Write
Hi Cham,
Yes, I’m happy to when I get a moment.
Kind regards,
Rob
From: Chamikara Jayalath [mailto:chamik...@google.com]
Sent: 15 July 2020 16:36
To: dev
Subject: Re: NanosInstant not being recognised by BigQueryIO.Write
*
"This is an ext
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 3:30 AM wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I am posting this to the dev (as opposed to user channel) as I believe it
> will be of interest to the those working on either Schemas or BigQuery
>
>
>
> I have a pipeline based on BEAM 2.22 that is ingesting data into
> BigQuery.
Hi All,
I am posting this to the dev (as opposed to user channel) as I believe it will
be of interest to the those working on either Schemas or BigQuery
I have a pipeline based on BEAM 2.22 that is ingesting data into BigQuery.
Internally I am using protobuf for my domain model and the
