[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2200?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16546810#comment-16546810
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on AVRO-2200:
--------------------------------------

dorner opened a new pull request #321: AVRO-2200: Option to fail when extra 
fields are in the payload
URL: https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/321
 
 
   See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2200
   
   Currently, when passing a datum into the schema validator, the datum will 
pass even if the datum has more fields than the schema does. This can be 
dangerous because the client code is assuming that the schema has these values, 
but they are actually being silently swallowed when they are encoded.
   
   This PR provides an option to make the validator fail on any extra fields.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


> Option to fail when extra fields are in the payload
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: AVRO-2200
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2200
>             Project: Avro
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: ruby
>            Reporter: Daniel Orner
>            Priority: Minor
>
> Currently, when passing a datum into the schema validator, the datum will 
> pass even if the datum has more fields than the schema does. This can be 
> dangerous because the client code is assuming that the schema has these 
> values, but they are actually being silently swallowed when they are encoded.
> I'd like to open a PR where we can provide an option to make the validator 
> fail on any extra fields. See https://github.com/salsify/avro-patches/pull/15



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to