Following schema:
{
"name" : "ARecord",
"type" : "record",
"namespace" : "AAA",
"fields" : [
{"name": "A", "type": "string" }
]
}
does not validate json
{}
as valid one. It's invalid. A is required, as would be expected by me.
---
I'm getting lost here.
What is the resolution? I kinda wanted to use avro schema to validate
described JSON, and now based on what you said IIUC validation in "xschema
style": "1 of this, followed by 2 of that" is not possible with avro
schema. Correct?
Btw. what do you use to validate JSON using avro? I used avro-utils.jar
executed from command line, which proved as incapable of deserializing &
validating optional fields if they are set (if optional field is set, I
have to pass value in json like: {"string":"value"}). So now I'm using for
testing purposes actual flow through NIFI, which is extremely cumbersome.
2017-11-27 16:19 GMT+01:00 Dan Schmitt <dan.schm...@gmail.com>:
> The top level object in all the examples is a record (of which you can
> have 0 or more.)
>
> So, right now, even the top level is failing the spec:
>
> IV) valid (0 ARecords):
> { }
>
> V) valid (2 ARecords):
> {
> "id": "...",
> "B": {
> "C": "..."
> }
> } ,
> "id": "...",
> "B": {
> "C": "..."
> }
> }
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Martin Mucha <alfon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand where "or more" is comming from.
>
> Because of the use of nested records. Anywhere you put a record you can
> have 0,
> or more than 1. I don't know of a pure schema way to enforce only
> 1/optional.
>
> If you are doing something with any of the APIs you could add a validation
> step
> that says "must have only 1 ARecord, and must have only 1 BRecord" after
> you
> read the data and throw an error for the 0 or 1+ situations, but you'd
> need to write
> some code somewhere with one of the APIs and build your own validator.
>
