google-apis-bigtableadmin_v2 0.55.0 → 0.56.0

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
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: []