-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 140
fix: flattening for kinesis #1329
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
nitisht
merged 2 commits into
parseablehq:main
from
nikhilsinhaparseable:fix-kinesis-flattening
Jun 3, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding metadata consistency for deeply nested records.
When skipping flattening due to excessive nesting, the original JSON is pushed without adding
requestId
andtimestamp
fields. This creates inconsistent data structure compared to flattened records.Consider adding the metadata even for non-flattened records:
📝 Committable suggestion
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if the decoded json is heavily nested and it's a json array, unwrapping it as object will always fail and
unwrap_or(&Map::new())
will end up in data loss, hence pushing the actual nested json to process is the best we can do here. Obviously, we cannot add metadata to the json array unless flattened, hence, we will have to push the original json as is for processing. Hope the description clarifies the changes.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nikhilsinhaparseable Thank you for the detailed explanation! You're absolutely right. I didn't consider the case where the decoded JSON could be an array at the root level. Your analysis is spot-on:
json.as_object()
would returnNone
unwrap_or(&Map::new())
would indeed cause data loss by replacing the array with an empty objectThe current implementation correctly handles this edge case by pushing the original JSON as-is. I appreciate the clarification!
✏️ Learnings added