add to and to_column(s) to ColumnLevelConstraint and ModelLevelConstraint contracts #163
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Thank you for your pull request! We could not find a changelog entry for this change. For details on how to document a change, see the contributing guide. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #163 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 64.34% 64.31% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 51 51
Lines 3223 3225 +2
==========================================
Hits 2074 2074
- Misses 1149 1151 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
MichelleArk
force-pushed
the
foreign-ref-column-constraint
branch
from
ed9ee13
to
f5e2c35
Compare
MichelleArk
changed the title
vperron
added a commit
to gip-inclusion/data-inclusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 22, 2024
The 'services' table has an implicit dependency to the 'structures' mart as its contracy enforces a check on its structure_id key towards that table. Make sure DBT knows about it so it generates the structures first. Referenced by dbt-labs/dbt-core#8062, might be fixed in dbt-labs/dbt-common#163 last week but: - not released - not documented - not sure the commit will actually help when I read it, needs more changes I suppose
vperron
added a commit
to gip-inclusion/data-inclusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2024
The 'services' table has an implicit dependency to the 'structures' mart as its constraint enforces a check on its structure_id key towards that table. Make sure DBT knows about it so it generates the structures first. Referenced by dbt-labs/dbt-core#8062, might be fixed in dbt-labs/dbt-common#163 last week but: - not released - not documented - not sure the commit will actually help when I read it, needs more changes I suppose
vperron
added a commit
to gip-inclusion/data-inclusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2024
The 'services' table has an implicit dependency to the 'structures' mart as its constraint enforces a check on its structure_id key towards that table. Make sure DBT knows about it so it generates the structures first. Referenced by dbt-labs/dbt-core#8062, might be fixed in dbt-labs/dbt-common#163 last week but: - not released - not documented - not sure the commit will actually help when I read it, needs more changes I suppose
vperron
added a commit
to gip-inclusion/data-inclusion
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2024
The 'services' table has an implicit dependency to the 'structures' mart as its constraint enforces a check on its structure_id key towards that table. Make sure DBT knows about it so it generates the structures first. Referenced by dbt-labs/dbt-core#8062, might be fixed in dbt-labs/dbt-common#163 last week but: - not released - not documented - not sure the commit will actually help when I read it, needs more changes I suppose
vperron
added a commit
to gip-inclusion/data-inclusion
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 5, 2024
The 'services' table has an implicit dependency to the 'structures' mart as its constraint enforces a check on its structure_id key towards that table. Make sure DBT knows about it so it generates the structures first. Referenced by dbt-labs/dbt-core#8062, might be fixed in dbt-labs/dbt-common#163 last week but: - not released - not documented - not sure the commit will actually help when I read it, needs more changes I suppose
vperron
added a commit
to gip-inclusion/data-inclusion
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 6, 2024
The 'services' table has an implicit dependency to the 'structures' mart as its constraint enforces a check on its structure_id key towards that table. Make sure DBT knows about it so it generates the structures first. Referenced by dbt-labs/dbt-core#8062, might be fixed in dbt-labs/dbt-common#163 last week but: - not released - not documented - not sure the commit will actually help when I read it, needs more changes I suppose
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
resolves #168
Description
as part of dbt-labs/dbt-core#8062, we will need to extend these contracts to optionally include to and to_columns fields.
Checklist
constraint.toandconstraint.to_columnson foreign key constraints dbt-core#10414 and render to and to_columns on column and model level fk constraints dbt-adapters#260; confirmed existing parsing works + extensions are parsedchangie newto create a changelog entry