You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avro.apache.org by "clesaec (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2023/08/10 09:01:02 UTC
[GitHub] [avro] clesaec opened a new pull request, #2435: AVRO-3749: [Java] avoid conflict in method name for generated code
clesaec opened a new pull request, #2435:
URL: https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/2435
<!--
*Thank you very much for contributing to Apache Avro - we are happy that you want to help us improve Avro. To help the community review your contribution in the best possible way, please go through the checklist below, which will get the contribution into a shape in which it can be best reviewed.*
*Please understand that we do not do this to make contributions to Avro a hassle. In order to uphold a high standard of quality for code contributions, while at the same time managing a large number of contributions, we need contributors to prepare the contributions well, and give reviewers enough contextual information for the review. Please also understand that contributions that do not follow this guide will take longer to review and thus typically be picked up with lower priority by the community.*
## Contribution Checklist
- Make sure that the pull request corresponds to a [JIRA issue](https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AVRO/issues). Exceptions are made for typos in JavaDoc or documentation files, which need no JIRA issue.
- Name the pull request in the form "AVRO-XXXX: [component] Title of the pull request", where *AVRO-XXXX* should be replaced by the actual issue number.
The *component* is optional, but can help identify the correct reviewers faster: either the language ("java", "python") or subsystem such as "build" or "doc" are good candidates.
- Fill out the template below to describe the changes contributed by the pull request. That will give reviewers the context they need to do the review.
- Make sure that the change passes the automated tests. You can [build the entire project](https://github.com/apache/avro/blob/master/BUILD.md) or just the [language-specific SDK](https://avro.apache.org/project/how-to-contribute/#unit-tests).
- Each pull request should address only one issue, not mix up code from multiple issues.
- Each commit in the pull request has a meaningful commit message (including the JIRA id)
- Every commit message references Jira issues in their subject lines. In addition, commits follow the guidelines from [How to write a good git commit message](https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/)
1. Subject is separated from body by a blank line
1. Subject is limited to 50 characters (not including Jira issue reference)
1. Subject does not end with a period
1. Subject uses the imperative mood ("add", not "adding")
1. Body wraps at 72 characters
1. Body explains "what" and "why", not "how"
-->
## What is the purpose of the change
As decribe in [JIRA AVRO-3749](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-3749), SqlCompiler **can generate same method name** when field name start with undescore '_' name.
hence, a schema with fields
`"x", "X", "_x"`
generates several method getX$0(), and source can't compile.
With this PR, it will generate getX() of x, getX$0 for X and getX$1() for _x
(but a schema that contains only field _x will generate only getX() method.)
For each field, it count number of collision with "preceding fields" to generate method. Preceding is defined with order, number of underscore (start with 0), and, for same number of underscore, start with lower case.
**This PR can also modify the generated code for a given schema.** thats why ipc TestSpecificCompiler is modify.
## Verifying this change
new Unit test on TestSpecificCompiler for compiler module.
Test on TestSpecificCompiler for module IPC is changed.
## Documentation
- Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
- If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avro.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [avro] clesaec merged pull request #2435: AVRO-3749: [Java] avoid conflict in method name for generated code
Posted by "clesaec (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
clesaec merged PR #2435:
URL: https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/2435
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avro.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [avro] clesaec commented on pull request #2435: AVRO-3749: [Java] avoid conflict in method name for generated code
Posted by "clesaec (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
clesaec commented on PR #2435:
URL: https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/2435#issuecomment-1673057125
`do such duplicate fields occur little enough that breaking code is worth`
Well, i don't know the frequency of duplicate fields issue in Avro client usage (at least an issue for author's AVRO-3749), but as breaking change occurs only when schema contains duplicate fields, i think it's ok. May be need a discussion on dev mailing list.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@avro.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [avro] opwvhk commented on pull request #2435: AVRO-3749: [Java] avoid conflict in method name for generated code
Posted by "opwvhk (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
opwvhk commented on PR #2435:
URL: https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/2435#issuecomment-1672900098
Nicely done! I like that the method `calcNameIndex` (also) documents the "no index" case.
This does, however, adjust the generated index (as indicated by the adjusted IPC test). This breaks existing code written against it.
A question: do such duplicate fields occur little enough that breaking code is worth the visual improvement (I like it, other may not)?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@avro.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org