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.

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

Bump dbt version #31

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 14, 2020
Merged

Bump dbt version #31

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 14, 2020

Conversation

clrcrl
Copy link
Contributor

@clrcrl clrcrl commented Sep 3, 2020

Description & motivation

0.18.0 release

Checklist

  • I have verified that these changes work locally
  • n/a I have updated the README.md (if applicable)
  • n/a I have added tests & descriptions to my models (and macros if applicable)

@clrcrl
Copy link
Contributor Author

clrcrl commented Sep 3, 2020

@jtcohen6 — can you look into this one when you get a chance?

@jtcohen6
Copy link
Contributor

jtcohen6 commented Sep 4, 2020

Okay, I resolved the confusing error and wound up with another weird one. Here's the gist: get_relations_by_prefix is not returning any results in codegen_integration_tests_bigquery_raw_data, even though it should. Why?

This is a bug in dbt-utils, and I think it's on me (from refactor to get tests passing in dbt-labs/dbt-utils#267). BigQuery needs this line to be:

        from {{adapter.quote(database)}}.{{schema_pattern}}.INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES

...sort of. Because information schemas are scoped to the dataset/schema on BQ, not the project/database, we don't really have a way of searching for a schema pattern as we do on the other databases. The utils test passes because we're not using a custom schema there, but we are here (raw_data).

@clrcrl
Copy link
Contributor Author

clrcrl commented Sep 4, 2020

Resolved that issue here

@clrcrl
Copy link
Contributor Author

clrcrl commented Sep 14, 2020

(Waiting for hub 0.6.1 release before kicking off again)

@jtcohen6
Copy link
Contributor

I just made a mess in Circle while trying to find the right workflow to rerun. Looks like this works with utils 0.6.1!

@clrcrl
Copy link
Contributor Author

clrcrl commented Sep 14, 2020

Removed the commit that added the placeholder model and have bumped the lower range of utils

Copy link
Contributor

@jtcohen6 jtcohen6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@clrcrl clrcrl merged commit aaf3c86 into master Sep 14, 2020
@clrcrl clrcrl deleted the 0.18.0 branch September 14, 2020 16:31
jeremyholtzman pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants