Re: [DISCUSS] Change Behavior for SchemaUpdate.UnionByName

2024-11-04 Thread Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Hi Rocco Thanks for bringing this discussion. In the context of multiple languages support (python, rust, go, java, ...), I'm more in favour of 1 (updating the docs). Implementations can deal with that. Regards JB On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 6:40 PM Rocco Varela wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Apologi

Re: [DISCUSS] Change Behavior for SchemaUpdate.UnionByName

2024-11-01 Thread Rocco Varela
Thanks Russell and Fokko. I updated my PR with the suggested updates. Cheers, --Rocco On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 3:01 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > Hey Rocco, > > Thanks for raising this. I don't have any strong feelings about this, and > I agree with Russell that it should not throw an exception.

Re: [DISCUSS] Change Behavior for SchemaUpdate.UnionByName

2024-11-01 Thread Fokko Driesprong
Hey Rocco, Thanks for raising this. I don't have any strong feelings about this, and I agree with Russell that it should not throw an exception. I guess there was no strong reason behind how it is today, but it's just because we leverage the UpdateSchema API, which raises an exception when doing

Re: [DISCUSS] Change Behavior for SchemaUpdate.UnionByName

2024-10-31 Thread Russell Spitzer
I'm in favor of 1 since previously these inputs would have thrown an exception that wasn't really that helpful. @Test public void testDowncastoLongToInt() { Schema currentSchema = new Schema(required(1, "aCol", LongType.get())); Schema newSchema = new Schema(required(1, "aCol", IntegerType.get