[jira] [Commented] (CALCITE-4367) Incorrect documentation for Avatica JSON request/response signatures

["Josh Elser (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4367?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17249864#comment-17249864 ] 

Josh Elser commented on CALCITE-4367:
-------------------------------------

Thanks for reporting, John. Will see if we can get the docs updated.

> Incorrect documentation for Avatica JSON request/response signatures
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CALCITE-4367
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4367
>             Project: Calcite
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: avatica
>            Reporter: John Bodley
>            Priority: Trivial
>          Time Spent: 20m
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I noticed a few inconsistencies between what is documented in the [Avatica JSON Reference|https://calcite.apache.org/avatica/docs/json_reference.html] and what the Avatica JDBC driver provides, specifically:
> # The {{DatabasePropertyRequest}} was missing the {{connection_id}} field in the example signature.
> # `RpcMetadata` is actually a response as opposed to a miscellaneous type per [here|https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica/blob/4b7eee5bf430b916c7c07897b6f60d2b6b6dabb7/core/src/main/protobuf/responses.proto#L114-L116] and thus requires a {{response}} field. Note I'm not certain if this was intentional, i.e., it being a response, however it it is it seems that it should be renamed to {{RpcMetadataResponse}} for consistency.
> # The supplied {{ConnectionProperties}} contains an undocumented {{dirty}} field ({{is_dirty}} for protobuf).
> # For the {{SchemasRequest}} the {{catalog}} and {{schemaPattern}} are optional rather than required.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)