[SEMANTIC-154] [Feature] Adding dbt_metrics_default_calendar.yml file for documentation
Closed this issue · 4 comments
Is this your first time submitting a feature request?
- I have read the expectations for open source contributors
- I have searched the existing issues, and I could not find an existing issue for this feature
- I am requesting a straightforward extension of existing dbt functionality, rather than a Big Idea better suited to a discussion
Describe the feature
I would like to add a yml file to document the dbt_metrics_default_calendar model in this dbt-metrics.
The reason is related to the new released dbt-project-evaluator packages which can be used to check our code based on the best practics. One of the test is fct_undocumented_models to ensure that each model has been documented. Check this link for more detail about this test.
Currently, when we run this test, the dbt_metrics_default_calendar will be detected as undocumented model. Hence, adding the documentation will solve this issue.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Create a new dbt_metrics_default_calendar.yml in the models folder to documenting this model. Which will looks like this:
version: 2
models:
- name: dbt_metrics_default_calendar
description: |
An auto generated calendar table that used for metrics.
columns:
- name: DATE_DAY
description: "Date"
tests:
- not_null
- unique
- name: DATE_WEEK
description: "Date truncated into week"
- name: DATE_MONTH
description: "Date truncated into month"
- name: DATE_QUARTER
description: "Date truncated into quarter"
- name: DATE_YEAR
description: "Date truncated into year"Who will this benefit?
All people that use dbt-metrics and dbt-project-evaluator
Are you interested in contributing this feature?
yes, I want to do it
Anything else?
No response
We also faced the same issue.
Our workaround is to create our own yml somewhere to fix the misalignment.
However, I think it shouldn't run in this way; the package should also follow the best practice, which is every model is with a doc.
It will be so great if the doc can be directly in the package!
@WeihaoLiTW @bimaputra1 - what a great find! We definitely don't want this to cause problems for those using dbt-project-evaluator, especially after so much work has gone in to make that package useful for the community.
@bimaputra1 if you're interested in opening up the PR for this issue I'm happy to take a look and review it!
Hi @callum-mcdata, yes sure. I would love to contribute by opening up the PR for this issue.