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

0.15.3 upgrade #65

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Mar 23, 2020
Merged

0.15.3 upgrade #65

merged 18 commits into from
Mar 23, 2020

Conversation

beckjake
Copy link
Contributor

This was one heck of a merge!

This PR is obviously based on @SamKosky's totally awesome work with #46. Where possible, I've prioritized PRs that have merged since it was written over the contents of #46 that did the same thing

There's probably a significant amount of cruft left over (duplicated/vestigial methods and macros, especially). If you notice any in your review, please shout.

I basically can't rebase this, I'm sorry about that. Getting a merge to behave was hard enough!

There might be test failures, I didn't get spark-http running locally.

@beckjake beckjake requested a review from jtcohen6 March 20, 2020 14:19
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.

This looks great.

I just did some end-to-end testing on local Spark and Databricks (including new merge incremental strategy). The only small thing I found is that both the seed and table materializations raise a new-in-0.15 deprecation warning:

* Deprecation Warning: The materialization ("table") did not explicitly return a list
    of relations to add to the cache. By default the target relation will be
    added, but this behavior will be removed in a future version of dbt.

  For more information, see:
  https://docs.getdbt.com/v0.15/docs/creating-new-materializations#section-6-returning-relations

That's something we should resolve before shipping. Otherwise, I think this is good to go.

@beckjake
Copy link
Contributor Author

I must have lost those in the merge, I think I've fixed it!

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.

@beckjake beckjake merged commit b48e144 into master Mar 23, 2020
@beckjake beckjake deleted the pr/0.15.3_upgrade branch March 24, 2020 14:55
@jtcohen6 jtcohen6 mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2020
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