dbt utils v1.0.0-rc1

[joellabes]

This is a:

• documentation update
• bug fix with no breaking changes
• new functionality
• a breaking change

All pull requests from community contributors should target the main branch (default).

Description & motivation

Full migration guide to come

Checklist

• This code is associated with an Issue which has been triaged and accepted for development.
• I have verified that these changes work locally on the following warehouses (Note: it's okay if you do not have access to all warehouses, this helps us understand what has been covered)
  • BigQuery
  • Postgres
  • Redshift
  • Snowflake
• I followed guidelines to ensure that my changes will work on "non-core" adapters by:
  • dispatching any new macro(s) so non-core adapters can also use them (e.g. the star() source)
  • using the limit_zero() macro in place of the literal string: limit 0
  • using dbt.type_* macros instead of explicit datatypes (e.g. dbt.type_timestamp() instead of TIMESTAMP
• I have updated the README.md (if applicable)
• I have added tests & descriptions to my models (and macros if applicable)
• I have added an entry to CHANGELOG.md

[joellabes]

@dbeatty10 even though we discussed doing the release candidate from main, I didn't do that because those last two PRs weren't fully resolved yet and I figured it'd be easier to unwind anything you didn't agree with if it wasn't already on main.

This PR is everything that's changed - either you or I have already reviewed each change independently, but might be useful for us to do one more check of the cohesive whole. Happy to either jump on a call or do it async as you prefer

[dbeatty10]

The Answer

🤓 This definitely feels like an answer:

The Review

either you or I have already reviewed each change independently, but might be useful for us to do one more check of the cohesive whole

👍 But in all seriousness, if each change has already been reviewed by a maintainer, then I'm all for merging as-is.

I'm assuming that doing so would allow all dev work going forward to be on the main branch again?

Proposed follow-up item

As a follow-up item, it would be worth viewing each of the PRs that were merged to the utils-v1 branch and confirm their associated issues are closed.

[joellabes]

I'm assuming that doing so would allow all dev work going forward to be on the main branch again?

Indeed! Our long national nightmare is finally over 🎉

confirm their associated issues are closed.

Good idea 🫡

[Vignesh-Pitchaiah]

Can you use distinct in inner model, cause it will improve the sql and optimize the search:

with recency as (

    select 

      {{ select_gb_cols }}
      {% if ignore_time_component %}
        cast(max({{ field }}) as date) as most_recent
      {%- else %}
        max({{ field }}) as most_recent
      {%- endif %}

    from {{ model }}

    {{ groupby_gb_cols }}

)

select

    {{ select_gb_cols }}
    most_recent,
    {{ threshold }} as threshold

from recency
where most_recent < {{ threshold }}

[dbeatty10]

@Vignesh-Pitchaiah that sounds like a either a feature request or bug report related to the recency generic test.

Could you open an issue here with all the relevant details?