[controller] Superset schema generation should reflect default value updates in new value schema #1184
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…updates in new value schema
m-nagarajan
reviewed
Sep 19, 2024
| * @return super-set schema of existingSchema abd newSchema | ||
| */ | ||
| public static Schema generateSuperSetSchema(Schema existingSchema, Schema newSchema) { | ||
| if (existingSchema.getType() != newSchema.getType()) { | ||
| public static Schema generateSuperSetSchema(Schema newSchema, Schema oldSchema) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel not changing the function definition should make the diff a bit concise. what do you think?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
[controller] Superset schema generation should reflect default value updates in new value schema
When user updates a field default value, we should reflect it in the changes in superset schema, which is used in read-compute / partial update store. This should apply to all the value type, including union schema.
How was this PR tested?
Add a new integration test to validate
Does this PR introduce any user-facing changes?