-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
feat(models): support dashboards containing dashboards #11529
Conversation
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
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.
Would like a different relationship name to be safe, but otherwise LGTM
*/ | ||
@Relationship = { | ||
"/*": { | ||
"name": "Contains", |
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.
I vote on new relationship name, even something ugly like DashboardContainsDashboard
. In general I think the potential downsides of shared relationship names (inability to distinguish between the two for some future use case) outweigh the benefits (shared logic)
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.
agreed
"isLineage": true | ||
} | ||
} | ||
dashboards: array[Urn] = [ ] |
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.
Should this be a list of edges rather than list of urns, to support time-based lineage and attribution? Time-based seems unnecessary here but I could see value in attribution
Actually, I think both are unnecessary, but leaving this here for discussion
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.
will just move to the Edge type, which should give us everything we need
Open questions right now - Do we want the field name to be `dashboards` or something more generic? - Do we want to continue using the "Contains" relationship type, or use something new e.g. "Includes" to make these easy to distinguish in the future.
9aa8daa
to
2f8ce2f
Compare
metadata-io tests were fixed by f09e18c |
Open questions right now
dashboards
or something more generic?Will help unblock #11523
Checklist