You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
One suggested change that could be made is to enable the keep keyword to have two behaviours:
[Existing behaviour]: If keep is passed a list of strings, these are interpreted as a list of metadata keys to keep
[New behaviour]: If keep is passed a Map, the map keys are interpreted as a list of metadata keys to keep while the values are used to rename those keys.
Example
This would allow you to have only one place where keys to keep are defined (and renaming is also handled in this same definition).
Issue
Right now, in order to rename and keep metadata keys, the same key must be defined twice:
This duplicates effort/lines to write.
Suggestion
One suggested change that could be made is to enable the
keep
keyword to have two behaviours:keep
is passed a list of strings, these are interpreted as a list of metadata keys to keepkeep
is passed a Map, the map keys are interpreted as a list of metadata keys to keep while the values are used to rename those keys.Example
This would allow you to have only one place where keys to keep are defined (and renaming is also handled in this same definition).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: