[CT-1123] Adapter pre_model_hook + post_model_hook for tests and compilation, too

[jtcohen6]

Adapting from dbt-labs/dbt-snowflake#23 (comment):

Let's talk about adapter.pre_model_hook + adapter.post_model_hook.

Background

Here's where they're triggered to run, right before and after a model materialization:

https://github.com/dbt-labs/dbt-core/blob/8c8be687019014ced9be37c084f944205fc916ab/core/dbt/task/run.py#L279-L283

These are different from user-provided pre-hook and post-hook, which run within materializations. (I wish we named these things a bit more distinctly). They are also no-ops by default:

https://github.com/dbt-labs/dbt-core/blob/8c8be687019014ced9be37c084f944205fc916ab/core/dbt/adapters/base/impl.py#L1093-L1116

For certain adapter plugins, these "internal" hooks are the appropriate mechanism for database-specific behavior that needs to wrap a node's execution. For instance, on dbt-snowflake, this is where we turn the snowflake_warehouse config into a use warehouse command. @dataders and I were just discussing the same principle for use database (compute and storage) in serverless Azure Synapse (?).

Current limitations

• These hooks are called for models, seeds, and snapshots, but not for tests, simply because the TestRunner does not inherit from the ModelRunner or extend its execute method (where adapter.pre_model_hook + adapter.post_model_hook get called). We've gotten the request to support snowflake_warehouse on tests several times.
• While these hooks appropriately wrap all queries called during materialization, they do not seem to wrap compilation. Introspective queries called during compilation (e.g. run_query) will use the default warehouse (target.warehouse or user/role-configured), rather than the value of snowflake_warehouse configured on the model.

Why improve this

• Consistency. This is what users expect to happen. Unified query history, so that all queries associated with a model actually use that model's configured compute.
• It's desirable to configure specific tests to run with beefier or lesser compute, just as with models.

[Kratzbaum92]

Any updates on this topic?

[pei0804]

Do you plan to resolve this issue?

[mimoyer21]

@jtcohen6 Any update on timeline for this one? This would be a big help.

[iknox-fa]

per BLG-- Maybe use protocols?

[rd144]

@jtcohen6 Is there any update on this? We're looking to reduce the snowflake costs of our pipelines and this functionality would support us in that.

[dbeatty10]

Thank you to all of you that have asked about this recently -- it's helpful for us to see the interest level.

While we don't currently have a timeline for implementing this feature, we are still interested in:

• improving consistency & aligning with user expectations
• being able to configure the compute used for specific tests

[SoumayaMauthoorMOJ]

I’ve created a dbt project to demonstrate how to implement WAP on table materializations using “dummy” post-test-hooks:

1. Create a ‘wap’ version of your model:

--my_table_wap.sql
{{ config(
    table_type='iceberg',
    s3_data_naming='unique',
    s3_data_dir=transform_table.generate_s3_location(),
) }}

SELECT 1 AS id

2. Create a view model that references the wap model, and then deletes the view and renames the wap table as post-hook:

--my_table.sql
{{ config(
    materialized='view',
    post_hook=[ 
        "DROP VIEW {{ this }}",
        "{{ rename_relation(ref('my_table_wap'),this) }}",
    ],
) }}

SELECT * FROM {{ref('my_table_wap')}}

It applies the approach to the example jaffle_shop_db dbt project which uses the dbt-duckdb adapter.

Would this feature replace the need for these “dummy” post-test-hooks? Otherwise I'm happy to raise a ticket for implementing post-test-hooks since my approach is just a work-around

[dbeatty10]

@SoumayaMauthoorMOJ cool that you were able to create an example of apply Write-Audit-Publish (WAP) with dbt build!

This issue (#212) seems focused on enabling use-cases like use warehouse in dbt-snowflake for dbt tests rather than WAP.

Rather, what you are asking about seems like it is covered by this Discussion: dbt-labs/dbt-core#5687. If applicable, do you want to add your thoughts or questions to that Discussion?

[SoumayaMauthoorMOJ]

@dbeatty10 thanks for clarifying. I did add a comment already (see here) but I didn't get a response so I thought an issue might be a good way to go to push the idea forward?

[dbeatty10]

@SoumayaMauthoorMOJ Ah, I see that now! dbt-labs/dbt-core#5687 is still the best place at this stage, and it would also be the perfect place to share this!

If you are looking to instigate further discussion, you could try posing some questions that invite the community to think and interact with your idea.

e.g., you could ask folks for feedback on the pros/cons of your approach. You could also ask if anyone has ideas how to enable that pattern in dbt-core without the need for the “dummy” post-test-hooks.

[vskarine]

Hi,
has there been any updates on this issue? Alternative suggestions are also welcome. We are trying to get test to run on the same warehouse as models to optimize time and cost.
Thank you!

[dbeatty10]

@vskarine We're still interested in this feature, but we don't currently have a timeline for implementing it.

[vskarine]

@vskarine We're still interested in this feature, but we don't currently have a timeline for implementing it.

Thanks for the update. I guess for now the only way for us to do it is to change warehouse size in the profile before each pipeline runs.

[bjarneschroeder]

Hey @dbeatty10,
although it will probably take some time, I would like to try to work on this. 😊

[dbeatty10]

Awesome @bjarneschroeder ! 🏆

Give it a go and let us know if you need any help along the way.

[bjarneschroeder]

Hey @dbeatty10, quick update:

I'm on it, but I found that it takes me more time than I expected to understand the overall structure of dbt and how different parts of the project interact with each other under the hood. After diving deeper into the project and playing around with a custom project and implementing some first changes, I wanted to check out test cases which currently test the hook execution for the run command, so I can add similiar cases for the test command. And although I can generally run tests successfully with make. I currently struggle to find good cases to debug, so I can play around with the internal program state during a specific time in the execution.

I found what looks like appropriate test cases which were in dbt/tests/adapter but I struggled to execute those. I then just found out that they were removed in this commit and that some restructuring of tests is going on by finding out about dbt-labs/dbt-core#9513 and then seeing in the dbt-postgres repo that the moved tests seemed not to be integrated yet.

TLDR:
So currently I'm still finding a good way to understand the issue better and what is important for a good implementation.
Because hooks always require the interaction with adapters its tricky for me to find a good way of debugging things and understanding stuff better. I'm on it, its a grind (a fun one though). ☺️

[jan-wolos-payu-gpo]

Hey @bjarneschroeder, any luck with some progress on this? :)

[bjarneschroeder]

Hey @jwolos I started a new job a few weeks ago which keeps me very busy. I unfortunately do not really have the time to work on this at the moment. Sorry!

[will-sargent-dbtlabs]

Upvoting this as a request from several active customers