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

Two failure cases of FastDeserializerGenerator #16

Open
volauvent opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

Two failure cases of FastDeserializerGenerator #16

volauvent opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@volauvent
Copy link

volauvent commented May 5, 2020

We have seen two FastDeserializer generation failure cases -

  1. Record with Nested Map fields
  2. Record that holds union a branch of which is the record itself

These two issues have been fixed in the following PR:
linkedin/avro-util#46

Can you take a look of this PR to see if you need this fixup?

@flowenol
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

Thank you for pointing this out. I'll try to replicate these issues in our branch and provide fixup similar to yours. We haven't run into such issues so far, probably because none of our production schemas contain above scenarios.

@FelixGV
Copy link

FelixGV commented May 29, 2020

Should we take another look at whether this fast-avro project should remain split between the RTB House and LinkedIn forks?

Since the last time we checked in about a year ago (in a discussion on issue #6), we've continued to invest significantly in this project to improve stability, performance and compatibility. We've got a few people from 3-4 teams contributing various improvements on the side. Since then, we also dropped our proprietary fork and migrated our internal projects to use the open-source one, so I believe the code is getting a good amount of production hardening.

If I understand correctly, the LI fork is a superset of the original on pretty much all dimensions, except for the fact we disabled the code gen cache (for reasons discussed in issue #6). If the cache is a mandatory feature to unify the two communities, I believe we could implement it in a way that's version-aware such that the concerns we cited are addressed.

We could do a video conference if you're interested in syncing up.

@flowenol
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

Sure, we can schedule a conference. In fact lately we don't invest much effort into this project as it fully meets our internal needs, except for occasional bugs.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants