We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Newer code tends to return schemas through the API using SQL, e.g.
ID INT KEY, NAME STRING, ADDRESS STRUCT<HOUSE_NO INT, STREET STRING, ...>
Where as the older code exposes this using a json version of the Connect schema, e.g.
[ { "name": "ID", "schema": { "type": "INT", "fields": null, "memberSchema": null } }, { "name": "NAME", "schema": { "type": "STRING", "fields": null, "memberSchema": null } }, { "name": "ADDRESS", "schema": { "type": "STRUCT", "fields": [ { "name": "HOUSE_NO", "schema": { "type": "INT", "fields": null, "memberSchema": null } } , { "name": "STREET", "schema": { "type": "STRING", "fields": null, "memberSchema": null } } ], "memberSchema": null } } ]
The later being handled by EntityUtil.
EntityUtil
We should probably standardize on one format.
Note: #3526
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Newer code tends to return schemas through the API using SQL, e.g.
ID INT KEY, NAME STRING, ADDRESS STRUCT<HOUSE_NO INT, STREET STRING, ...>
Where as the older code exposes this using a json version of the Connect schema, e.g.
The later being handled by
EntityUtil
.We should probably standardize on one format.
Note: #3526
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: