Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Adds ability to provide same validator N times #960

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 15, 2024
Merged

Adds ability to provide same validator N times #960

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 15, 2024

Conversation

skrawcz
Copy link
Collaborator

@skrawcz skrawcz commented Jun 14, 2024

Fixes #950 by allowing multiple validators with the same name.

Changes

  • validators

How I tested this

  • locally via unit tests

Notes

Checklist

  • PR has an informative and human-readable title (this will be pulled into the release notes)
  • Changes are limited to a single goal (no scope creep)
  • Code passed the pre-commit check & code is left cleaner/nicer than when first encountered.
  • Any change in functionality is tested
  • New functions are documented (with a description, list of inputs, and expected output)
  • Placeholder code is flagged / future TODOs are captured in comments
  • Project documentation has been updated if adding/changing functionality.

@skrawcz
Adds ability to provide same validator N times
365dab3 
Fixes #950. This fixes the case where someone wants to do

```python
@check_output_custom(
CategoricalValuesValidatorPySparkDataFrame(column="ReportingId", allowed_values=[156], importance="fail")),
CategoricalValuesValidatorPySparkDataFrame(column="CategoryID", allowed_values=[1, 2, 3], importance="fail")
)
```
The validator name is the same, but it's used differently. So this
appends a numeric number to make it unique.
@skrawcz skrawcz requested a review from elijahbenizzy June 14, 2024 03:41
elijahbenizzy
elijahbenizzy approved these changes Jun 14, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@elijahbenizzy elijahbenizzy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add disclaimer to the docs but otherwise looks good

@skrawcz
Adds documentation about not stacking check_output_custom
b128d8c 
We cannot stack them, instead you can pass multiple ones in.
@skrawcz skrawcz merged commit 3da2639 into main Jun 15, 2024
23 checks passed
@skrawcz skrawcz deleted the fix_950 branch June 15, 2024 05:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@elijahbenizzy elijahbenizzy elijahbenizzy approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Value Error When Applying Multiple Data Validation Decorators to the Same Function
2 participants
@skrawcz @elijahbenizzy