Open ReLoutre opened 2 months ago
Up to implementation, but we could also add a flag to let the user choose the behavior intented (ie. remove annotation metadata from JSON or add a field annotation
in the corresponding JSON key-value)
Up to implementation, but we could also add a flag to let the user choose the behavior intented (ie. remove annotation metadata from JSON or add a field
annotation
in the corresponding JSON key-value)
Being able to do both would indeed be awesome.
PS: "annot":"base64"
must be "annots":["base64"]
instead. Since multiple annotations may be attached to a single value.
It seems to be a bug with the IonMapper, I'll try to create a reproducer to open a bug upstream.
@ReLoutre can you add in a comment the way to generate this base64 annotated field?
In my case I'm using the Java com.amazon.ion.IonWriter
class (here's the doc) and use it like following : ionWriter.addTypeAnnotation("base64");
(here's the doc).
PS: Take note that TGlzmlhbGUgZGUgbCdJVVQ=
in my example doesn't mean anything in base 64 and may not even be a valid base64 encoding, yet it is solely stored as a string annotated and so it shouldn't have a link with the problem.
Describe the issue
Using IonToJson task on a file that contains a type annotated value produce infinite nested call of IonSystemLite['loader"] and IonStringLite["system"].
Bug reproduction
Here's a flow to reproduce the error :
Here's the content of the file to input in the flow :
Removing the type annotation
base64::
works fine.Expecting behaviour :
While downgrading to JSON type annotation may be totally erased or concerned field may be translated as :
For example...
Environment
Error encountered