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

Feature request: include package name or package url in arrow metadata #46

Open
ericphanson opened this issue May 20, 2022 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #122
Open

Feature request: include package name or package url in arrow metadata #46

ericphanson opened this issue May 20, 2022 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #122

Comments

@ericphanson
Copy link
Member

Since Legolas schemas are defined in code, if you just have a table, Legols.read will tell you the schema isn't defined and you need to load the package, but it won't tell you which package (brought up by @a-cakir in the engineering roundtable). Namespacing can help, but it could be more clear if we actually just put the julia module name where the @row was defined, and/or the package name, and/or the repo url. We could put this in the Arrow metadata and use it to give a more precise error message.

@hannahilea
Copy link
Contributor

this would be a game-changer!

@jrevels
Copy link
Member

jrevels commented May 20, 2022

probably a good idea

also ref #1

@hannahilea
Copy link
Contributor

#47 is esp important if/when this gets implemented (thanks @palday)

@jrevels
Copy link
Member

jrevels commented Oct 26, 2022

xref #54 (comment)

@ericphanson
Copy link
Member Author

just to bump this; I think we should have some metadata at least for julia users to know what package provides a schema, so undefschema errors can say "load package X".

(came up in an internal project)

@ericphanson ericphanson linked a pull request Aug 28, 2024 that will close this issue
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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants