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

fix: get_custom_database docs describe postfix when default behaviour… #9002

Merged

Conversation

LeoTheGriff
Copy link
Contributor

@LeoTheGriff LeoTheGriff commented Nov 6, 2023

resolves #9003

Problem

Incorrect behaviour described in docstring for get_custom_database macro.

Solution

Update docstring for get_custom_database macro.

Checklist

  • I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me
  • I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the stated issue
  • This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for this PR
  • This PR has no interface changes (e.g. macros, cli, logs, json artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX
  • This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions

… is to take the custom database value directly, if provided
@LeoTheGriff LeoTheGriff requested a review from a team as a code owner November 6, 2023 12:21
Copy link

cla-bot bot commented Nov 6, 2023

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, please reach out through a comment on this PR.

CLA has not been signed by users: @LeoTheGriff

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 6, 2023

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.

@LeoTheGriff
Copy link
Contributor Author

LeoTheGriff commented Nov 6, 2023

CLA has been signed.

@LeoTheGriff LeoTheGriff requested a review from a team as a code owner November 6, 2023 12:32
@LeoTheGriff LeoTheGriff requested a review from gshank November 6, 2023 12:32
@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla:yes label Nov 6, 2023
@dbeatty10 dbeatty10 added the ready_for_review Externally contributed PR has functional approval, ready for code review from Core engineering label Nov 6, 2023
@dbeatty10
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for opening this PR @LeoTheGriff !

Looks like there was copy-paste within #2143 in which the comments didn't get fully updated for accuracy.

Your update looks good to me.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 6, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (7fddd6e) 86.51% compared to head (fb49938) 86.46%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9002      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.51%   86.46%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         179      179              
  Lines       26508    26508              
==========================================
- Hits        22934    22920      -14     
- Misses       3574     3588      +14     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 83.28% <ø> (-0.13%) ⬇️
unit 64.81% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@LeoTheGriff
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks, can this be approved so it can be merged?

@mikealfare mikealfare removed the request for review from nathaniel-may November 7, 2023 19:11
@dbeatty10 dbeatty10 merged commit bb35b3e into dbt-labs:main Nov 7, 2023
@dbeatty10
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for finding and fixing this @LeoTheGriff 👍
Merged!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla:yes ready_for_review Externally contributed PR has functional approval, ready for code review from Core engineering
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[CT-3322] [Bug] Incorrect behaviour described in docstring for get_custom_database macro
3 participants