-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Feature union schemas #55
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…bt_mixpanel into feature_union_schemas
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.
@fivetran-jamie this looks really good! I have a few change requests, but generally the code looks great and tested on the various iterations and didn't see any issues! Once these comments are addressed this should be ready for approval.
|
||
> Please note: This is a **Breaking Change** in that we have a added a new field, `source_relation`, that points to the source connection from which the record originated. | ||
> This `source_relation` field is now part of all generated unique keys. | ||
> |
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.
Is this extra carrot necessary?
name: connection_2_source_name | ||
``` | ||
|
||
##### Recommended: Incorporate unioned sources into DAG |
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.
What are your thoughts around collapsing this subsection as it may not be applicable for the majority of users?
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.
Can you also address Issue #54 in this PR since it's a fairly small update and quick fix.
@@ -5,12 +5,12 @@ | |||
|
|||
-- this test ensures the daily_activity end model matches the prior version | |||
with prod as ( | |||
select * |
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.
Reminder to remove before merging so this is incorporated in future test cases.
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ The following table provides a detailed list of all tables materialized within t | |||
| [mixpanel__sessions](https://fivetran.github.io/dbt_mixpanel/#!/model/model.mixpanel.mixpanel__sessions) | Each record represents a unique user session, including metrics reflecting the frequency and type of actions taken during the session and any relevant fields from the session's first event. | | |||
|
|||
### Materialized Models | |||
Each Quickstart transformation job run materializes 6 models if all components of this data model are enabled. This count includes all staging, intermediate, and final models materialized as `view`, `table`, or `incremental`. | |||
Each Quickstart transformation job run materializes 7 models if all components of this data model are enabled (6 if you are running the package on only one Mixpanel connection). This count includes all staging, intermediate, and final models materialized as `view`, `table`, or `incremental`. |
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.
Since this is just for Quickstart I would say we only show 6. Unioning isn't available on Quickstart yet, so I worry this would confuse users more than help.
PR Overview
This PR will address the following Issue/Feature:
#52 by merging in and adding to #53
This PR will result in the following new package version:
v0.11.0
Please provide the finalized CHANGELOG entry which details the relevant changes included in this PR:
Feature Update: Run Package on Unioned Connectors
PR Checklist
Basic Validation
Please acknowledge that you have successfully performed the following commands locally:
Before marking this PR as "ready for review" the following have been applied:
Detailed Validation
Please share any and all of your validation steps:
devprodtest_incremental passes both steps
If you had to summarize this PR in an emoji, which would it be?
🥣