Commit 5219763
Laurent Valdes
fix: accept JSON string defaults for decimal fields in union
Per Avro 1.12.0 Specification, §"Complex Types / Records", the JSON
encoding of a `bytes` field's default value is a string whose codepoints
0-255 map to byte values 0-255 (e.g. `"\u00FF"`). The same section
specifies that a union-typed field's default must correspond to the
first schema that matches in the union.
`decimal` is defined as a logical type over `bytes`, so this rule
transitively applies: a nullable decimal field expressed as
`[{bytes, logicalType: decimal}, null]` with a JSON string default
requires `resolve_decimal` to accept `Value::String` when validating
defaults at schema parse time. Before this change the parser rejected
such schemas with `GetDefaultUnion(Decimal, String)`, even though
Java and Python Avro accept them.
The added arm walks the string's codepoints, rejecting any above
0xFF, and returns a `Value::Decimal`. The precision check is skipped
because the spec does not require a default's byte length to cover
the declared precision — it only requires a valid `bytes` value.
Wire-level decoded records always reach `resolve_decimal` as
`Value::Bytes`, so this arm is exclusively a default-validation path.
Tests cover `\u0000`, a full 0..=255 round-trip, codepoints > 0xFF
being rejected, and end-to-end parsing of a nullable decimal record
schema.1 parent 016d0f6 commit 5219763
1 file changed
+129
-0
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
846 | 846 | | |
847 | 847 | | |
848 | 848 | | |
| 849 | + | |
| 850 | + | |
| 851 | + | |
| 852 | + | |
| 853 | + | |
| 854 | + | |
| 855 | + | |
| 856 | + | |
| 857 | + | |
| 858 | + | |
| 859 | + | |
| 860 | + | |
| 861 | + | |
| 862 | + | |
| 863 | + | |
| 864 | + | |
| 865 | + | |
| 866 | + | |
| 867 | + | |
| 868 | + | |
| 869 | + | |
| 870 | + | |
| 871 | + | |
| 872 | + | |
| 873 | + | |
| 874 | + | |
| 875 | + | |
| 876 | + | |
| 877 | + | |
| 878 | + | |
| 879 | + | |
| 880 | + | |
| 881 | + | |
| 882 | + | |
| 883 | + | |
| 884 | + | |
| 885 | + | |
| 886 | + | |
| 887 | + | |
849 | 888 | | |
850 | 889 | | |
851 | 890 | | |
| |||
1776 | 1815 | | |
1777 | 1816 | | |
1778 | 1817 | | |
| 1818 | + | |
| 1819 | + | |
| 1820 | + | |
| 1821 | + | |
| 1822 | + | |
| 1823 | + | |
| 1824 | + | |
| 1825 | + | |
| 1826 | + | |
| 1827 | + | |
| 1828 | + | |
| 1829 | + | |
| 1830 | + | |
| 1831 | + | |
| 1832 | + | |
| 1833 | + | |
| 1834 | + | |
| 1835 | + | |
| 1836 | + | |
| 1837 | + | |
| 1838 | + | |
| 1839 | + | |
| 1840 | + | |
| 1841 | + | |
| 1842 | + | |
| 1843 | + | |
| 1844 | + | |
| 1845 | + | |
| 1846 | + | |
| 1847 | + | |
| 1848 | + | |
| 1849 | + | |
| 1850 | + | |
| 1851 | + | |
| 1852 | + | |
| 1853 | + | |
| 1854 | + | |
| 1855 | + | |
| 1856 | + | |
| 1857 | + | |
| 1858 | + | |
| 1859 | + | |
| 1860 | + | |
| 1861 | + | |
| 1862 | + | |
| 1863 | + | |
| 1864 | + | |
| 1865 | + | |
| 1866 | + | |
| 1867 | + | |
| 1868 | + | |
| 1869 | + | |
| 1870 | + | |
| 1871 | + | |
| 1872 | + | |
| 1873 | + | |
| 1874 | + | |
| 1875 | + | |
| 1876 | + | |
| 1877 | + | |
| 1878 | + | |
| 1879 | + | |
| 1880 | + | |
| 1881 | + | |
| 1882 | + | |
| 1883 | + | |
| 1884 | + | |
| 1885 | + | |
| 1886 | + | |
| 1887 | + | |
| 1888 | + | |
| 1889 | + | |
| 1890 | + | |
| 1891 | + | |
| 1892 | + | |
| 1893 | + | |
| 1894 | + | |
| 1895 | + | |
| 1896 | + | |
| 1897 | + | |
| 1898 | + | |
| 1899 | + | |
| 1900 | + | |
| 1901 | + | |
| 1902 | + | |
| 1903 | + | |
| 1904 | + | |
| 1905 | + | |
| 1906 | + | |
| 1907 | + | |
1779 | 1908 | | |
1780 | 1909 | | |
1781 | 1910 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments