Skip to content

Spec: Clarify variant shredding spec #512

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
rdblue merged 3 commits into from
Aug 15, 2025
Merged

Spec: Clarify variant shredding spec #512

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1207a62
Clarify variant shredding spec
sfc-gh-aixu Aug 3, 2025
28e8dc2
Update repetition level and style
sfc-gh-aixu Aug 5, 2025
a8b6c19
Remove repetition level
sfc-gh-aixu Aug 5, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion VariantShredding.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -126,7 +126,8 @@ The list `element` must be a required group.
The `element` group can contain `value` and `typed_value` fields.
The element's `value` field stores the element as Variant-encoded `binary` when the `typed_value` is not present or cannot represent it.
The `typed_value` field may be omitted when not shredding elements as a specific type.
When `typed_value` is omitted, `value` must be `required`.
The `value` field may be omitted when shredding elements as a specific type.

@rdblue rdblue Aug 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is fine to say that one of the fields must be present and that value can be omitted (though it is not necessary).

@zeroshade zeroshade Aug 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we also clarify whether they can/should be optional vs required or either?

@aihuaxu aihuaxu Aug 15, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for reviewing. In line 68, we have the statement

Both value and typed_value are optional fields used together to encode a single value.

to serve the overall value shredding. I think we don't need to mention in different places.

@zeroshade zeroshade Aug 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That means the test cases which test with the fields being required should also get notes that they are invalid based on the spec?

@aihuaxu aihuaxu Aug 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we have such case in the tests. The case we have is: the group should be required but it's passed in as optional. For example:

required group event_type {
      optional binary value;
      optional binary typed_value (STRING);
    }

However, at least one of the two fields must be present.

For example, a `tags` Variant may be shredded as a list of strings using the following definition:
```
Expand Down