Skip to content

feat: adds uint16, 32 and 64 formats #4585

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 15, 2025

Conversation

baywet
Copy link
Contributor

@baywet baywet commented May 15, 2025

fixes #4564

Copy link
Contributor

@mikekistler mikekistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good! 👍

Copy link
Contributor

@lornajane lornajane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding these

@karenetheridge
Copy link
Member

This was created and merged so quickly I didn't have a chance to flag an issue with this...

There is no need for an integer type to be represented as a string in JSON (or YAML, or whatever other serialization format is being used). If the language/implementation/architecture cannot interpret the value as a native integer, then it can decode it into whatever makes sense for that architecture, and the format validation can then know that it is intended to represent a very large number for the purpose of its validation.

Allowing this value to be a string, for the purpose of encoding into JSON/YAML/etc, is not the right level of abstraction.

@baywet baywet deleted the feat/uint-formats branch May 15, 2025 17:05
@baywet
Copy link
Contributor Author

baywet commented May 15, 2025

So then we should remove the string JSON data type from:

  • uint64
  • int64
  • decimal
  • decimal128

?

@karenetheridge
Copy link
Member

Yes, I don't see why we need it, and it only adds complication.

@baywet
Copy link
Contributor Author

baywet commented May 15, 2025

Thanks for pointing this out! See #4588

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants