google-apis-bigtableadmin_v2 0.55.0 → 0.56.0

Sign up to get free protection for your applications and to get access to all the features.
checksums.yaml CHANGED
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
1
1
  ---
2
2
  SHA256:
3
- metadata.gz: 21b790d4f6da0b0456790936f833c7b7820ab1a8a6f4ef125984b0b8b2ae8431
4
- data.tar.gz: 9270cb4eff15e782b3d85d73eca226dc46089e39c7c36372559caaa916a7a742
3
+ metadata.gz: 6e23577923f63d62dc8a2b9d4d8ce2a86534ddf15d2c9c92464b5823928c2ad6
4
+ data.tar.gz: 02c01f31429b100fc87c41dbb8e71c63b130bded5a4c698530d9ab9834b6db81
5
5
  SHA512:
6
- metadata.gz: 4cbe34dea0bfe3f12f00110604ede82fa08d4ffc717732f0076e19caa1151266c8d6cd34d1ebbf29d8edcf4cf4f02a037cc48a4688f3d339d646daff19db0afa
7
- data.tar.gz: 8152a5dbd3ebde2bf85daac0334fbee941d8c9cc921e289122df779bd79ba095ce9e23571f57dd60f8979e447eec57b7f5c88b6c2067c28a781553a823c26b10
6
+ metadata.gz: 58a87bb8529a70914249a5c6fe15d4744aa85f47d93a46f687c8e93af05fa37ec6ae2a2c09bdab7950913ded79e3bd25d185e296c1e12664eebffa760e735516
7
+ data.tar.gz: 1f2d37435e4b0ab7787563d766c39a7010a86168c3dd5e6f1b4e19de22c1a0037a6c9a15fce814239a4e01b1eb3e1d7d63e321ab370a7b43882323e172ccb164
data/CHANGELOG.md CHANGED
@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
1
1
  # Release history for google-apis-bigtableadmin_v2
2
2
 
3
+ ### v0.56.0 (2024-06-09)
4
+
5
+ * Regenerated from discovery document revision 20240522
6
+
3
7
  ### v0.55.0 (2024-05-19)
4
8
 
5
9
  * Regenerated using generator version 0.15.0
@@ -771,19 +771,19 @@ module Google
771
771
  # Each link in the encoding chain also defines the following properties: *
772
772
  # Natural sort: Does the encoded value sort consistently with the original typed
773
773
  # value? Note that Bigtable will always sort data based on the raw encoded value,
774
- # *not* the decoded type. - Example: STRING values sort in the same order as
775
- # their UTF-8 encodings. - Counterexample: Encoding INT64 to a fixed-width
776
- # STRING does *not* preserve sort order when dealing with negative numbers.
777
- # INT64(1) > INT64(-1), but STRING("-00001") > STRING("00001). - The overall
778
- # encoding chain sorts naturally if *every* link does. * Self-delimiting: If we
779
- # concatenate two encoded values, can we always tell where the first one ends
780
- # and the second one begins? - Example: If we encode INT64s to fixed-width
781
- # STRINGs, the first value will always contain exactly N digits, possibly
782
- # preceded by a sign. - Counterexample: If we concatenate two UTF-8 encoded
783
- # STRINGs, we have no way to tell where the first one ends. - The overall
784
- # encoding chain is self-delimiting if *any* link is. * Compatibility: Which
785
- # other systems have matching encoding schemes? For example, does this encoding
786
- # have a GoogleSQL equivalent? HBase? Java?
774
+ # *not* the decoded type. - Example: BYTES values sort in the same order as
775
+ # their raw encodings. - Counterexample: Encoding INT64 to a fixed-width STRING
776
+ # does *not* preserve sort order when dealing with negative numbers. INT64(1) >
777
+ # INT64(-1), but STRING("-00001") > STRING("00001). - The overall encoding chain
778
+ # has this property if *every* link does. * Self-delimiting: If we concatenate
779
+ # two encoded values, can we always tell where the first one ends and the second
780
+ # one begins? - Example: If we encode INT64s to fixed-width STRINGs, the first
781
+ # value will always contain exactly N digits, possibly preceded by a sign. -
782
+ # Counterexample: If we concatenate two UTF-8 encoded STRINGs, we have no way to
783
+ # tell where the first one ends. - The overall encoding chain has this property
784
+ # if *any* link does. * Compatibility: Which other systems have matching
785
+ # encoding schemes? For example, does this encoding have a GoogleSQL equivalent?
786
+ # HBase? Java?
787
787
  # Corresponds to the JSON property `valueType`
788
788
  # @return [Google::Apis::BigtableadminV2::Type]
789
789
  attr_accessor :value_type
@@ -1607,19 +1607,19 @@ module Google
1607
1607
  # Each link in the encoding chain also defines the following properties: *
1608
1608
  # Natural sort: Does the encoded value sort consistently with the original typed
1609
1609
  # value? Note that Bigtable will always sort data based on the raw encoded value,
1610
- # *not* the decoded type. - Example: STRING values sort in the same order as
1611
- # their UTF-8 encodings. - Counterexample: Encoding INT64 to a fixed-width
1612
- # STRING does *not* preserve sort order when dealing with negative numbers.
1613
- # INT64(1) > INT64(-1), but STRING("-00001") > STRING("00001). - The overall
1614
- # encoding chain sorts naturally if *every* link does. * Self-delimiting: If we
1615
- # concatenate two encoded values, can we always tell where the first one ends
1616
- # and the second one begins? - Example: If we encode INT64s to fixed-width
1617
- # STRINGs, the first value will always contain exactly N digits, possibly
1618
- # preceded by a sign. - Counterexample: If we concatenate two UTF-8 encoded
1619
- # STRINGs, we have no way to tell where the first one ends. - The overall
1620
- # encoding chain is self-delimiting if *any* link is. * Compatibility: Which
1621
- # other systems have matching encoding schemes? For example, does this encoding
1622
- # have a GoogleSQL equivalent? HBase? Java?
1610
+ # *not* the decoded type. - Example: BYTES values sort in the same order as
1611
+ # their raw encodings. - Counterexample: Encoding INT64 to a fixed-width STRING
1612
+ # does *not* preserve sort order when dealing with negative numbers. INT64(1) >
1613
+ # INT64(-1), but STRING("-00001") > STRING("00001). - The overall encoding chain
1614
+ # has this property if *every* link does. * Self-delimiting: If we concatenate
1615
+ # two encoded values, can we always tell where the first one ends and the second
1616
+ # one begins? - Example: If we encode INT64s to fixed-width STRINGs, the first
1617
+ # value will always contain exactly N digits, possibly preceded by a sign. -
1618
+ # Counterexample: If we concatenate two UTF-8 encoded STRINGs, we have no way to
1619
+ # tell where the first one ends. - The overall encoding chain has this property
1620
+ # if *any* link does. * Compatibility: Which other systems have matching
1621
+ # encoding schemes? For example, does this encoding have a GoogleSQL equivalent?
1622
+ # HBase? Java?
1623
1623
  # Corresponds to the JSON property `inputType`
1624
1624
  # @return [Google::Apis::BigtableadminV2::Type]
1625
1625
  attr_accessor :input_type
@@ -1635,19 +1635,19 @@ module Google
1635
1635
  # Each link in the encoding chain also defines the following properties: *
1636
1636
  # Natural sort: Does the encoded value sort consistently with the original typed
1637
1637
  # value? Note that Bigtable will always sort data based on the raw encoded value,
1638
- # *not* the decoded type. - Example: STRING values sort in the same order as
1639
- # their UTF-8 encodings. - Counterexample: Encoding INT64 to a fixed-width
1640
- # STRING does *not* preserve sort order when dealing with negative numbers.
1641
- # INT64(1) > INT64(-1), but STRING("-00001") > STRING("00001). - The overall
1642
- # encoding chain sorts naturally if *every* link does. * Self-delimiting: If we
1643
- # concatenate two encoded values, can we always tell where the first one ends
1644
- # and the second one begins? - Example: If we encode INT64s to fixed-width
1645
- # STRINGs, the first value will always contain exactly N digits, possibly
1646
- # preceded by a sign. - Counterexample: If we concatenate two UTF-8 encoded
1647
- # STRINGs, we have no way to tell where the first one ends. - The overall
1648
- # encoding chain is self-delimiting if *any* link is. * Compatibility: Which
1649
- # other systems have matching encoding schemes? For example, does this encoding
1650
- # have a GoogleSQL equivalent? HBase? Java?
1638
+ # *not* the decoded type. - Example: BYTES values sort in the same order as
1639
+ # their raw encodings. - Counterexample: Encoding INT64 to a fixed-width STRING
1640
+ # does *not* preserve sort order when dealing with negative numbers. INT64(1) >
1641
+ # INT64(-1), but STRING("-00001") > STRING("00001). - The overall encoding chain
1642
+ # has this property if *every* link does. * Self-delimiting: If we concatenate
1643
+ # two encoded values, can we always tell where the first one ends and the second
1644
+ # one begins? - Example: If we encode INT64s to fixed-width STRINGs, the first
1645
+ # value will always contain exactly N digits, possibly preceded by a sign. -
1646
+ # Counterexample: If we concatenate two UTF-8 encoded STRINGs, we have no way to
1647
+ # tell where the first one ends. - The overall encoding chain has this property
1648
+ # if *any* link does. * Compatibility: Which other systems have matching
1649
+ # encoding schemes? For example, does this encoding have a GoogleSQL equivalent?
1650
+ # HBase? Java?
1651
1651
  # Corresponds to the JSON property `stateType`
1652
1652
  # @return [Google::Apis::BigtableadminV2::Type]
1653
1653
  attr_accessor :state_type
@@ -3170,19 +3170,19 @@ module Google
3170
3170
  # Each link in the encoding chain also defines the following properties: *
3171
3171
  # Natural sort: Does the encoded value sort consistently with the original typed
3172
3172
  # value? Note that Bigtable will always sort data based on the raw encoded value,
3173
- # *not* the decoded type. - Example: STRING values sort in the same order as
3174
- # their UTF-8 encodings. - Counterexample: Encoding INT64 to a fixed-width
3175
- # STRING does *not* preserve sort order when dealing with negative numbers.
3176
- # INT64(1) > INT64(-1), but STRING("-00001") > STRING("00001). - The overall
3177
- # encoding chain sorts naturally if *every* link does. * Self-delimiting: If we
3178
- # concatenate two encoded values, can we always tell where the first one ends
3179
- # and the second one begins? - Example: If we encode INT64s to fixed-width
3180
- # STRINGs, the first value will always contain exactly N digits, possibly
3181
- # preceded by a sign. - Counterexample: If we concatenate two UTF-8 encoded
3182
- # STRINGs, we have no way to tell where the first one ends. - The overall
3183
- # encoding chain is self-delimiting if *any* link is. * Compatibility: Which
3184
- # other systems have matching encoding schemes? For example, does this encoding
3185
- # have a GoogleSQL equivalent? HBase? Java?
3173
+ # *not* the decoded type. - Example: BYTES values sort in the same order as
3174
+ # their raw encodings. - Counterexample: Encoding INT64 to a fixed-width STRING
3175
+ # does *not* preserve sort order when dealing with negative numbers. INT64(1) >
3176
+ # INT64(-1), but STRING("-00001") > STRING("00001). - The overall encoding chain
3177
+ # has this property if *every* link does. * Self-delimiting: If we concatenate
3178
+ # two encoded values, can we always tell where the first one ends and the second
3179
+ # one begins? - Example: If we encode INT64s to fixed-width STRINGs, the first
3180
+ # value will always contain exactly N digits, possibly preceded by a sign. -
3181
+ # Counterexample: If we concatenate two UTF-8 encoded STRINGs, we have no way to
3182
+ # tell where the first one ends. - The overall encoding chain has this property
3183
+ # if *any* link does. * Compatibility: Which other systems have matching
3184
+ # encoding schemes? For example, does this encoding have a GoogleSQL equivalent?
3185
+ # HBase? Java?
3186
3186
  class Type
3187
3187
  include Google::Apis::Core::Hashable
3188
3188
 
@@ -16,13 +16,13 @@ module Google
16
16
  module Apis
17
17
  module BigtableadminV2
18
18
  # Version of the google-apis-bigtableadmin_v2 gem
19
- GEM_VERSION = "0.55.0"
19
+ GEM_VERSION = "0.56.0"
20
20
 
21
21
  # Version of the code generator used to generate this client
22
22
  GENERATOR_VERSION = "0.15.0"
23
23
 
24
24
  # Revision of the discovery document this client was generated from
25
- REVISION = "20240429"
25
+ REVISION = "20240522"
26
26
  end
27
27
  end
28
28
  end
metadata CHANGED
@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
1
1
  --- !ruby/object:Gem::Specification
2
2
  name: google-apis-bigtableadmin_v2
3
3
  version: !ruby/object:Gem::Version
4
- version: 0.55.0
4
+ version: 0.56.0
5
5
  platform: ruby
6
6
  authors:
7
7
  - Google LLC
8
8
  autorequire:
9
9
  bindir: bin
10
10
  cert_chain: []
11
- date: 2024-05-19 00:00:00.000000000 Z
11
+ date: 2024-06-09 00:00:00.000000000 Z
12
12
  dependencies:
13
13
  - !ruby/object:Gem::Dependency
14
14
  name: google-apis-core
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ licenses:
58
58
  metadata:
59
59
  bug_tracker_uri: https://github.com/googleapis/google-api-ruby-client/issues
60
60
  changelog_uri: https://github.com/googleapis/google-api-ruby-client/tree/main/generated/google-apis-bigtableadmin_v2/CHANGELOG.md
61
- documentation_uri: https://googleapis.dev/ruby/google-apis-bigtableadmin_v2/v0.55.0
61
+ documentation_uri: https://googleapis.dev/ruby/google-apis-bigtableadmin_v2/v0.56.0
62
62
  source_code_uri: https://github.com/googleapis/google-api-ruby-client/tree/main/generated/google-apis-bigtableadmin_v2
63
63
  post_install_message:
64
64
  rdoc_options: []