c-thiel commented on issue #694: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/694#issuecomment-2474153227
I think I have most of my motivation in https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/645#issue-2543573501 and the comments referenced above. I follow the argument from Renjie. For me `UnboundPartitionSpec` has a different semantic than a previously bound spec, manifested also in the Optional Field ID. Using `UnboundPartitionSpec` in `TableMetadata` would introduce lines of error handling in other places, where we expect the `FieldId` to be present. As `field_id` is a required field in the spec for `TableMetadata`, we would have to use `SchemalessPartitionSpec` at least to deserialize the json before transforming it to `UnboundPartitionSpec`. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
