tests(datahub-client): new tests for the AvroSchemaConverter #12087
+1,581
−0
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
the
ingestion
sgomezvillamor
commented
Dec 11, 2024
| assertSchemaField( | ||
| schema.getFields().get(1), | ||
| "[version=2.0].[type=MapType].[type=map].[type=ComplexType].mapOfComplexType", | ||
| "ComplexType", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should native type be map<string,ComplexType>?
sgomezvillamor
commented
Dec 11, 2024
Comment on lines
+186
to
+202
| assertSchemaField( | ||
| schema.getFields().get(4), | ||
| "[version=2.0].[type=MapType].[type=map].[type=union].mapOfNullableString", | ||
| "union", | ||
| false, | ||
| false, | ||
| new SchemaFieldDataType() | ||
| .setType( | ||
| SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create( | ||
| new MapType().setKeyType("string").setValueType("union")))); | ||
| assertSchemaField( | ||
| schema.getFields().get(5), | ||
| "[version=2.0].[type=MapType].[type=map].[type=union].[type=string].mapOfNullableString", | ||
| "string", | ||
| false, | ||
| false, | ||
| new SchemaFieldDataType().setType(SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create(new StringType()))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
avro schema
{
"name": "mapOfNullableString",
"type": {
"type": "map",
"values": ["null", "string"]
}
},
the native type is union, no reference to map
expectedNullable for the value is false instead of true
it's a union but only one tested field 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it should be nullable, and native type maybe should be union<null, string>
sgomezvillamor
commented
Dec 11, 2024
Comment on lines
+234
to
+243
| assertSchemaField( | ||
| schema.getFields().get(10), | ||
| "[version=2.0].[type=MapType].[type=map].[type=array].mapOfArray", | ||
| "array(string)", | ||
| false, | ||
| false, | ||
| new SchemaFieldDataType() | ||
| .setType( | ||
| SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create( | ||
| new ArrayType().setNestedType(new StringArray("string"))))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
avro schema
{
"name": "mapOfArray",
"type": {
"type": "map",
"values": {
"type": "array",
"items": "string"
}
}
},
native type should be map of string array
and the schemafielddatatype is also missing references to MapType
new SchemaFieldDataType()
.setType(
SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create(
new MapType().setKeyType("string").setValueType(<XXXX>))));
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yep, I think you are right
sgomezvillamor
commented
Dec 11, 2024
Comment on lines
+244
to
+253
| assertSchemaField( | ||
| schema.getFields().get(11), | ||
| "[version=2.0].[type=MapType].[type=map].[type=map].mapOfMap", | ||
| "map<string,int>", | ||
| false, | ||
| false, | ||
| new SchemaFieldDataType() | ||
| .setType( | ||
| SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create( | ||
| new MapType().setKeyType("string").setValueType("int")))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
avro schema
{
"name": "mapOfMap",
"type": {
"type": "map",
"values": {
"type": "map",
"values": "int"
}
}
},
map of <string, int> !
sgomezvillamor
commented
Dec 11, 2024
Comment on lines
+504
to
+513
| assertSchemaField( | ||
| schema.getFields().get(9), | ||
| "[version=2.0].[type=StructType].[type=ComplexStruct].structField.[type=union].fieldUnion", | ||
| "union", | ||
| true, | ||
| false, | ||
| new SchemaFieldDataType() | ||
| .setType( | ||
| SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create( | ||
| new UnionType().setNestedTypes(new StringArray("union"))))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
considering this comes from
{
"name": "fieldUnion",
"type": [
"null",
"string",
"int"
]
},
I would expect something like
Suggested change
| assertSchemaField( | |
| schema.getFields().get(9), | |
| "[version=2.0].[type=StructType].[type=ComplexStruct].structField.[type=union].fieldUnion", | |
| "union", | |
| true, | |
| false, | |
| new SchemaFieldDataType() | |
| .setType( | |
| SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create( | |
| new UnionType().setNestedTypes(new StringArray("union"))))); | |
| assertSchemaField( | |
| schema.getFields().get(9), | |
| "[version=2.0].[type=StructType].[type=ComplexStruct].structField.[type=union].fieldUnion", | |
| "union<string, int>", | |
| true, | |
| false, | |
| new SchemaFieldDataType() | |
| .setType( | |
| SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create( | |
| new UnionType().setNestedTypes(new StringArray("string", "int"))))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this be union<null, string, int> as native type as it is nullable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
line 508 is about nullable flag
but yes, union<null, string, int> would also look good to me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, but I feel like in Avro this is the actual native type
sgomezvillamor
commented
Dec 11, 2024
Comment on lines
+886
to
+892
| assertSchemaField( | ||
| schema.getFields().get(18), | ||
| "[version=2.0].[type=users_record].[type=map].[type=int].props", | ||
| "int", | ||
| true, | ||
| false, | ||
| new SchemaFieldDataType().setType(SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create(new NumberType()))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
avro schema
{
"name": "props",
"type": [
"null",
{
"type": "map",
"values": [
"null",
"int"
]
}
],
"default": null
},
so this should be
Suggested change
| assertSchemaField( | |
| schema.getFields().get(18), | |
| "[version=2.0].[type=users_record].[type=map].[type=int].props", | |
| "int", | |
| true, | |
| false, | |
| new SchemaFieldDataType().setType(SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create(new NumberType()))); | |
| assertSchemaField( | |
| schema.getFields().get(18), | |
| "[version=2.0].[type=users_record].[type=map].[type=int].props", | |
| "map<string, int>", | |
| true, | |
| false, | |
| new SchemaFieldDataType() | |
| .setType( | |
| SchemaFieldDataType.Type.create( | |
| new MapType().setKeyType("string").setValueType("int")))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you are right, correctly it should be your suggested change
5 tasks
datahub-cyborg
bot
added
the
pending-submitter-response
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Checklist