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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Make
vw_pin_appeal
unique bypin
,year
,case_no
#674Make
vw_pin_appeal
unique bypin
,year
,case_no
#674Changes from 16 commits
87bc911
f7bf637
f58cbb0
3ef8db7
44b3afe
85f91c1
ce5d1ae
2c30b1e
f4ab2a2
8c1775d
24cd07d
6fce362
be255cd
a5fe98d
3c788bc
10e5f88
52008f6
fa2644c
95fbb5d
879658e
6b4a017
f200b79
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This conditional means we'll only get strictly defined appeals - I'm not entirely positive that's what we want, but it is what we suggest our view is. If we allow in other values for this column we need to address three appeals in 2022 that have both "E" and "A"
heartyp
for the samepin
,case_no
,year
.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.
For some godforsaken reason there are PINs in
htpar
that are not inpardat
.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.
[Question, non-blocking] Why remove these PINs, when the only side effect of their inclusion would be some appeals with null classes? We could just document that artifact in the view? I guess I don't feel super confident that in these cases the mistake lies in extraneous appeals, rather than missing rows from
pardat
. But if you do, I'm happy to move forward with this.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.
My thought was that we usually depend on pardat or the parcel shapefile as our parcel universe. Once we start letting pins from outside of those two sources into views our universe is going to be inconsistent across tables, views, etc. Personally, I trust pardat more than htpar.
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.
@jeancochrane this works, but I'm not sure if I've included extraneous columns.
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.
It should work with only
heartyp
, since that's the only new column that's being used in a table filter or join. The rest of the new columns here afterheartyp
should be unnecessary, since we're not testing their output and the default that dbt chooses (null) won't affect joins or filters. Does that work as expected?