Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 21, 2023. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@cgiraldo
Copy link

There are some inconsistencies in the open data model descriptions:

  • There are long and bigint types for timestamps.
  • Ipv4 addresses are declared as long but int is enough.
  • Ipv6 addresses are declared as bigint.
  • http info status are explicitly declared as http_info_status when it is just a specific case of http_code_status.

Here is a modified version of the open data model trying to fix the previous inconsitencies. Following avro types I have used:

  • int for 32bit
  • long for 64bit.
  • Avro does not have a type for 128bit. I have use int128 as type definition for the ODM. Avro definition should look like:

{"type": "fixed", "name": "128bit", "size": 16}

@cgiraldo cgiraldo mentioned this pull request Aug 29, 2018
@schonz
Copy link

schonz commented Aug 29, 2018

Thanks for opening a new PR with the conflicts fixed.
Please create a new Jira Issue here and I will be sure to bring it up in the next project meeting on 09/07 (See Dev mailing list for more details).

If you can attend, that would be a great forum for you to get immediate feedback on your PR.

@cgiraldo cgiraldo changed the title Spot 181 odm SPOR-179 - Inconsistencies in the open data model descriptions Aug 30, 2018
@cgiraldo cgiraldo changed the title SPOR-179 - Inconsistencies in the open data model descriptions SPOT-279 - Inconsistencies in the open data model descriptions Aug 30, 2018
@TaddWood
Copy link
Contributor

TaddWood commented Sep 7, 2018

Let's defer this PR until we have our next discussion about the future of the ODM.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants