Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix Avro integer to JSON type mapping in specification documentation #3291

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

glywk
Copy link
Contributor

@glywk glywk commented Jan 14, 2025

What is the purpose of the change

This pull request fix the mapping type between Avro Type and JSON type for integral numbers

Verifying this change

This change concerns only documentation

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

@KalleOlaviNiemitalo
Copy link
Contributor

draft-bhutton-json-schema-validation-01 supports "type": "integer".

What justifies changing already released versions of the specification?

@KalleOlaviNiemitalo
Copy link
Contributor

Standard ECMA-404 (The JSON Data Interchange Syntax) 2nd edition does not mention "integer". For numbers, it defines only syntax and does not specify which differences must or must not be ignored by parsers; for example, whether 1E0 is the same as 1E00.

@glywk
Copy link
Contributor Author

glywk commented Jan 15, 2025

draft-bhutton-json-schema-validation-01 supports "type": "integer".

What justifies changing already released versions of the specification?

This patch does not change the code of the released version. It only fixes the specifications available on the site.
I propose to patch all the release documentation to provide proper website documentation for people who are not able to upgrade to the latest version immediately for some reason.

@glywk
Copy link
Contributor Author

glywk commented Jan 15, 2025

Standard ECMA-404 (The JSON Data Interchange Syntax) 2nd edition does not mention "integer". For numbers, it defines only syntax and does not specify which differences must or must not be ignored by parsers; for example, whether 1E0 is the same as 1E00.

The RFC8259 values does not defined integer as a valid type. All are include in numbers

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants