This package highlights areas of a dbt project that are misaligned with dbt Labs' best practices. Specifically, this package tests for:
- Modeling - your dbt DAG for modeling best practices
- Testing - your models for testing best practices
- Documentation - your models for documentation best practices
- Structure - your dbt project for file structure and naming best practices
- Performance - your model materializations for performance best practices
In addition to tests, this package creates the model int_all_dag_relationships which holds information about your DAG in a tabular format and can be queried using SQL in your Warehouse.
Currently, the following adapters are supported:
- BigQuery
- Databricks/Spark
- PostgreSQL
- Redshift
- Snowflake
- DuckDB
Check dbt Hub for the latest installation instructions, or read the docs for more information on installing packages.
In your dbt_project.yml, add the following config:
# dbt_project.yml
dispatch:
- macro_namespace: dbt_utils
search_order: ['dbt_project_evaluator', 'spark_utils', 'dbt_utils']This is required because the project currently provides limited support for arrays macros for Databricks/Spark which is not part of spark_utils yet.
This package will:
- Parse your graph object and write it into your warehouse as a series of models (see models/marts/core)
- Create another series of models that each represent one type of misalignment in your project (below you can find a full list of each misalignment and its accompanying model)
- Test those models to alert you to the presence of the misalignment
Once you've installed the package, all you have to do is run a dbt build --select package:dbt_project_evaluator!
Each test warning indicates the presence of a type of misalignment. To troubleshoot a misalignment:
- Locate the related documentation below
- Query the associated model to find the specific instances of the issue within your project
- Either fix the issue(s) or customize the package to exclude them
fct_direct_join_to_source (source) shows each parent/child relationship where a model has a reference to
both a model and a source.
Example
int_model_4 is pulling in both a model and a source.
Reason to Flag
We highly recommend having a one-to-one relationship between sources and their corresponding staging model, and not having any other model reading from the source. Those staging models are then the ones read from by the other downstream models.
This allows renaming your columns and doing minor transformation on your source data only once and being consistent across all the models that will consume the source data.
How to Remediate
In our example, we would want to:
- create a
stagingmodel for our source data if it doesn't exist already - and join this
stagingmodel to other ones to create our downstream transformation instead of using the source
After refactoring your downstream model to select from the staging layer, your DAG should look like this:
fct_marts_or_intermediate_dependent_on_source (source) shows each downstream model (marts or intermediate)
that depends directly on a source node.
Example
fct_model_9, a marts model, builds from source_1.table_5 a source.
Reason to Flag
We very strongly believe that a staging model is the atomic unit of data modeling. Each staging
model bears a one-to-one relationship with the source data table it represents. It has the same
granularity, but the columns have been renamed, recast, or usefully reconsidered into a consistent
format. With that in mind, if a marts or intermediate type model joins directly to a {{ source() }}
node, there likely is a missing model that needs to be added.
How to Remediate
Add the reference to the appropriate staging model to maintain an abstraction layer between your raw data
and your downstream data artifacts.
After refactoring your downstream model to select from the staging layer, your DAG should look like this:
fct_model_fanout (source) shows all parents with more than 3 direct leaf children.
You can set your own threshold for model fanout by overriding the models_fanout_threshold variable. See overriding variables section.
Example
fct_model has three direct leaf children.
Reason to Flag
This might indicate some transformations should move to the BI layer, or a common business transformations should be moved upstream.
Exceptions
Some BI tools are better than others at joining and data exploration. For example, with Looker you could end your DAG after marts (i.e. fcts & dims) and join those artifacts together (with a little know how and setup time) to make your reports. For others, like Tableau, model fanouts might be more beneficial, as this tool prefers big tables over joins, so predefining some reports is usually more performant.
To exclude specific cases, check out the instructions in Configuring exceptions to the rules.
How to Remediate
Queries and transformations can move around between dbt and the BI tool, so how do we try to stay effortful in what we decide to put where?
You can think of dbt as our assembly line which produces expected outputs every time.
You can think of the BI layer as the place where we take the items produced from our assembly line to customize them in order to meet our stakeholder's needs.
Your dbt project needs a defined end point! Until the metrics server comes to fruition, you cannot possibly predefine every query or quandary your team might have. So decide as a team where that line is and maintain it.
fct_multiple_sources_joined (source) shows each instance where a model references more than one source.
Example
model_1 references two source tables.
Reason to Flag
We very strongly believe that a staging model is the atomic unit of data modeling. Each staging
model bears a one-to-one relationship with the source data table it represents. It has the same
granularity, but the columns have been renamed, recast, or usefully reconsidered into a consistent
format. With that in mind, two {{ source() }} declarations in one staging model likely means we are
not being composable enough and there are individual building blocks which could be broken out into
their respective models.
Exceptions
Sometimes companies have a bunch of identical sources across systems. When these identical sources will only ever be used collectively, you should union them once and create a staging layer on the combined result.
To exclude specific cases, check out the instructions in Configuring exceptions to the rules.
How to Remediate
In this example specifically, those raw sources, source_1.table_1 and source_1.table_2 should each
have their own staging model (stg_model_1 and stg_model_2), as transitional steps, which will
then be combined into a new int_model_2. Alternatively, you could keep stg_model_2 and add
base__ models as transitional steps.
To fix this, try out the codegen package! With
this package you can dynamically generate the SQL for a staging (what they call base) model, which
you will use to populate stg_model_1 and stg_model_2 directly from the source data. Create a
new model int_model_2. Afterwards, within int_model_2, update your {{ source() }} macros to
{{ ref() }} macros and point them to your newly built staging models. If you had type casting,
field aliasing, or other simple improvements made in your original stg_model_2 SQL, then attempt
to move that logic back to the new staging models instead. This will help colocate those
transformations and avoid duplicate code, so that all downstream models can leverage the same
set of transformations.
Post-refactor, your DAG should look like this:
or if you want to use base_ models and keep stg_model_2 as is:
fct_rejoining_of_upstream_concepts (source) contains all cases where one of the parent's direct children
is ALSO the direct child of ANOTHER one of the parent's direct children. Only includes cases
where the model "in between" the parent and child has NO other downstream dependencies.
Example
stg_model_1, int_model_4, and int_model_5 create a "loop" in the DAG. int_model_4 has no other downstream dependencies other than int_model_5.
Reason to Flag
This could happen for a variety of reasons: Accidentally duplicating some business concepts in multiple data flows, hesitance to touch (and break) someone else’s model, or perhaps trying to snowflake out or modularize everything without awareness of what will help build time.
As a general rule, snowflaking out models in a thoughtful manner allows for concurrency, but in this
example nothing downstream can run until int_model_4 finishes, so it is not saving any time in
parallel processing by being its own model. Since both int_model_4 and int_model_5 depend solely
on stg_model_1, there is likely a better way to write the SQL within one model (int_model_5) and
simplify the DAG, potentially at the expense of more rows of SQL within the model.
Exceptions
The one major exception to this would be when using a function from
dbt_utils package, such as star or get_column_values,
(or similar functions / packages) that require a relation
as an argument input. If the shape of the data in the output of stg_model_1 is not the same as what you
need for the input to the function within int_model_5, then you will indeed need int_model_4 to create
that relation, in which case, leave it.
To exclude specific cases, check out the instructions in Configuring exceptions to the rules.
How to Remediate
Barring jinja/macro/relation exceptions we mention directly above, to resolve this, simply bring the SQL contents from int_model_4 into a CTE within int_model_5, and swap all {{ ref('int_model_4') }} references to the new CTE(s).
Post-refactor, your DAG should look like this:
fct_root_models (source) shows each model with 0 direct parents, meaning that the model cannot be traced back to a declared source or model in the dbt project.
Example
model_4 has no direct parents
Reason to Flag
This likely means that the model (model_4 below) contains raw table references, either to a raw data source, or another model in the project without using the {{ source() }} or {{ ref() }} functions, respectively. This means that dbt is unable to interpret the correct lineage of this model, and could result in mis-timed execution and/or circular references depending on the model’s upstream dependencies.
Exceptions
This behavior may be observed in the case of a manually defined reference table that does not have any dependencies. A good example of this is a dim_calendar table that is generated by the {{ dbt_utils.date_spine() }} macro — this SQL logic is completely self contained, and does not require any external data sources to execute.
To exclude specific cases, check out the instructions in Configuring exceptions to the rules.
How to Remediate
Start by mapping any table references in the FROM clause of the model definition to the models or raw tables that they draw from, and replace those references with the {{ ref() }} if the dependency is another dbt model, or the {{ source() }} function if the table is a raw data source (this may require the declaration of a new source table). Then, visualize this model in the DAG, and refactor as appropriate according to best practices.
fct_source_fanout (source) shows each instance where a source is the direct parent of multiple resources in the DAG.
Example
source.table_1 has more than one direct child model.
Reason to Flag
Each source node should be referenced by a single model that performs basic operations, such as renaming, recasting, and other light transformations to maintain consistency through out the project. The role of this staging model is to mirror the raw data but align it with project conventions. The staging model should act as a source of truth and a buffer- any model which depends on the data from a given source should reference the cleaned data in the staging model as opposed to referencing the source directly. This approach keeps the code DRY (any light transformations that need to be done on the raw data are performed only once). Minimizing references to the raw data will also make it easier to update the project should the format of the raw data change.
Exceptions
NoSQL databases or heavily nested data sources often have so much info json packed into a table that you need to break one raw data source into multiple base models.
To exclude specific cases, check out the instructions in Configuring exceptions to the rules.
How to Remediate
Create a staging model which references the source and cleans the raw data (e.g. renaming, recasting). Any models referencing the source directly should be refactored to point towards the staging model instead.
After refactoring the above example, the DAG would look something like this:
fct_staging_dependent_on_marts_or_intermediate (source) shows each staging model that depends on an intermediate or marts model, as defined by the naming conventions and folder paths specified in your project variables.
Example
stg_model_5, a staging model, builds from fct_model_9 a marts model.
Reason to Flag
This likely represents a misnamed file. According to dbt best practices, staging models should only select from source nodes. Dependence on downstream models indicates that this model may need to be either renamed, or reconfigured to only select from source nodes.
How to Remediate
Rename the file in the child column to use to appropriate prefix, or change the models lineage
by pointing the staging model to the appropriate {{ source() }}.
After updating the model to use the appropriate {{ source() }} function, your graph should look like this:
fct_staging_dependent_on_staging (source) shows each parent/child relationship where models in the staging layer are
dependent on each other.
Example
stg_model_2 is a parent of stg_model_4.
Reason to Flag
This may indicate a change in naming is necessary, or that the child model should instead reference a source.
How to Remediate
You should either change the model type of the child (maybe to an intermediate or marts model) or change the child's lineage instead reference the appropriate {{ source() }}.
In our example, we might realize that stg_model_4 is actually an intermediate model. We should move this file to the appropriate intermediate directory and update the file name to int_model_4.
fct_unused_sources (source) shows each source with 0 children.
Example
source.table_4 isn't being referenced.
Reason to Flag
This represents either a source that you have defined in YML but never brought into a model or a model that was deprecated and the corresponding rows in the source block of the YML file were not deleted at the same time. This simply represents the buildup of cruft in the project that doesn’t need to be there.
How to Remediate
Navigate to the sources.yml file (or whatever your company has called the file) that corresponds
to the unused source. Within the YML file, remove the unused table name, along with descriptions
or any other nested information.
version: 2
sources:
- name: some_source
database: raw
tables:
- name: table_1
- name: table_2
- name: table_3
- name: table_4 # <-- remove this line
fct_missing_primary_key_tests (source) lists every model that does not meet the minimum testing requirement of testing primary keys. Any models that does not have both a not_null and unique test configured will be highlighted in this model.
Reason to Flag
Tests are assertions you make about your models and other resources in your dbt project (e.g. sources, seeds and snapshots). Defining tests is a great way to confirm that your code is working correctly, and helps prevent regressions when your code changes. Models without proper tests on their grain are a risk to the reliability and scalability of your project.How to Remediate
Apply a uniqueness test and a not null test to the column that represents the grain of your model in its schema entry. For models that are unique across a combination of columns, we recommend adding a surrogate key column to your model, then applying these tests to that new model. See the surrogate_key macro from dbt_utils for more info!
Additional tests can be configured by applying a generic test in the model's .yml entry or by creating a singular test
in the tests directory of you project.
fct_test_coverage (source) contains metrics pertaining to project-wide test coverage.
Specifically, this models measures:
test_coverage_pct: the percentage of your models that have minimum 1 test applied.test_to_model_ratio: the ratio of the number of tests in your dbt project to the number of models in your dbt project< model_type >_test_coverage_pct: the percentage of each of your model types that have minimum 1 test applied.
This model will raise a warn error on a dbt build or dbt test if the test_coverage_pct is less than 100%.
You can set your own threshold by overriding the test_coverage_target variable.
You can adjust your own model types by overriding the model_types variable. See overriding variables section.
Reason to Flag
We recommend that every model in your dbt project has tests applied to ensure the accuracy of your data transformations.How to Remediate
Apply a generic test in the model's .yml entry, or create a singular test
in the tests directory of you project.
As explained above, we recommend at a minimum, every model should have not_null and unique tests set up on a primary key.
fct_documentation_coverage (source) calculates the percent of enabled models in the project that have
a configured description.
This model will raise a warn error on a dbt build or dbt test if the documentation_coverage_pct is less than 100%.
You can set your own threshold by overriding the test_coverage_target variable. See overriding variables section.
Reason to Flag
Good documentation for your dbt models will help downstream consumers discover and understand the datasets which you curate for them. The documentation for your project includes model code, a DAG of your project, any tests you've added to a column, and more.How to Remediate
Apply a text description in the model's .yml entry, or create a docs block in a markdown file, and use the {{ doc() }}
function in the model's .yml entry.
Tip: We recommend that every model in your dbt project has at minimum a model-level description. This ensures that each model's purpose is clear to other developers and stakeholders when viewing the dbt docs site.
fct_undocumented_models (source) lists every model with no description configured.
Reason to Flag
Good documentation for your dbt models will help downstream consumers discover and understand the datasets which you curate for them. The documentation for your project includes model code, a DAG of your project, any tests you've added to a column, and more.How to Remediate
Apply a text description in the model's .yml entry, or create a docs block in a markdown file, and use the {{ doc() }}
function in the model's .yml entry.
Tip: We recommend that every model in your dbt project has at minimum a model-level description. This ensures that each model's purpose is clear to other developers and stakeholders when viewing the dbt docs site. Missing documentation should be addressed first for marts models, then for the rest of your project, to ensure that stakeholders in the organization can understand the data which is surfaced to them.
fct_model_naming_conventions (source) shows all cases where a model does NOT have the appropriate prefix.
Example
Consider model_8 which is nested in the marts subdirectory:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
├── marts
└── model_8.sql
This model should be renamed to either fct_model_8 or dim_model_8.
Reason to Flag
Without appropriate naming conventions, a user querying the data warehouse might incorrectly assume the model type of a given relation. In order to explicitly name the model type in the data warehouse, we recommend appropriately prefixing your models in dbt.| Model Type | Appropriate Prefixes |
|---|---|
| Staging | stg_ |
| Intermediate | int_ |
| Marts | fct_ or dim_ |
| Other | rpt_ |
How to Remediate
For each model flagged, ensure the model type is defined and the model name is prefixed appropriately.
fct_model_directories (source) shows all cases where a model is NOT in the appropriate subdirectory:
- For staging models: The files should be nested in the staging folder of a subfolder that matches their source parent's name.
- For non-staging models: The files should be nested closest to the folder name that matches their model type.
Example
Consider stg_model_3 which is a staging model for source_2.table_3:
But, stg_model_3.sql is inappropriately nested in the subdirectory source_1:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
├── marts
└── staging
└── source_1
├── stg_model_3.sql
This file should be moved into the subdirectory source_2:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
├── marts
└── staging
├── source_1
└── source_2
├── stg_model_3.sql
Consider dim_model_7 which is a marts model but is inappropriately nested closest to the subdirectory intermediate:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
└── marts
└── intermediate
├── dim_model_7.sql
This file should be moved closest to the subdirectory marts:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
└── marts
├── dim_model_7.sql
Consider int_model_4 which is an intermediate model but is inappropriately nested closest to the subdirectory marts:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
└── marts
├── int_model_4.sql
This file should be moved closest to the subdirectory intermediate:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
└── marts
└── intermediate
├── int_model_4.sql
Reason to Flag
Because we often work with multiple data sources, in our staging directory, we create one subdirectory per source.
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
├── marts
└── staging
├── braintree
└── stripe
Each staging directory contains:
- One staging model for each raw source table
- One .yml file which contains source definitions, tests, and documentation (see Source Directories)
- One .yml file which contains tests & documentation for models in the same directory (see Test Directories)
This provides for clear repository organization, so that analytics engineers can quickly and easily find the information they need.
We might create additional folders for intermediate models but each file should always be nested closest to the folder name that matches their model type.
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
└── marts
└── fct_model_6.sql
└── intermediate
└── int_model_5.sql
How to Remediate
For each resource flagged, move the file from the current_file_path to change_file_path_to.
fct_source_directories (source) shows all cases where a source definition is NOT in the appropriate subdirectory:
Example
Consider source_2.table_3 which is a source_2 source but it had been defined inappropriately in a source.yml file nested in the subdirectory source_1:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
├── marts
└── staging
└── source_1
├── source.yml
This definition should be moved into a source.yml file nested in the subdirectory source_2:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
├── marts
└── staging
├── source_1
└── source_2
├── source.yml
Reason to Flag
Because we often work with multiple data sources, in our staging directory, we create one subdirectory per source.
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
├── marts
└── staging
├── braintree
└── stripe
Each staging directory contains:
- One staging model for each raw source table (see Model Directories)
- One .yml file which contains source definitions, tests, and documentation
- One .yml file which contains tests & documentation for models in the same directory (see Test Directories)
This provides for clear repository organization, so that analytics engineers can quickly and easily find the information they need.
How to Remediate
For each source flagged, move the file from the current_file_path to change_file_path_to.
fct_test_directories (source) shows all cases where model tests are NOT in the same subdirectory as the corresponding model.
Example
int_model_4 is located within marts/. However, tests for int_model_4 are configured in staging/staging.yml:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
└── marts
├── int_model_4.sql
└── staging
├── staging.yml
A new yml file should be created in marts/ which contains all tests and documentation for int_model_4, and for the rest of the models in located in the marts/ directory:
├── dbt_project.yml
└── models
└── marts
├── int_model_4.sql
├── marts.yml
└── staging
├── staging.yml
Reason to Flag
Each subdirectory in models/ should contain one .yml file that includes the tests and documentation for all models within the given subdirectory. Keeping your repository organized in this way ensures that folks can quickly access the information they need.
How to Remediate
Move flagged tests from the yml file under current_test_directory to the yml file under change_test_directory_to (create a new yml file if one does not exist).
fct_chained_views_dependencies (source) contains models that are dependent on chains of "non-physically-materialized" models (views and ephemerals), highlighting potential cases for improving performance by switching the materialization of model(s) within the chain to table or incremental.
This model will raise a warn error on a dbt build or dbt test if the distance between a given parent and child is greater than or equal to 4.
You can set your own threshold for chained views by overriding the chained_views_threshold variable. See overriding variables section.
Example
table_1 depends on a chain of 4 views (view_1, view_2, view_3, and view_4).
Reason to Flag
You may experience a long runtime for a model when it is build on top of a long chain of "non-physically-materialized" models (views and ephemerals). In the example above, nothing is really computed until you get to table_1. At which point, it is going to run the query within view_4, which will then have to run the query within view_3, which will then have the run the query within view_2, which will then have to run the query within view_1. These will all be running at the same time, which creates a long runtime for table_1.
How to Remediate
We can reduce this compilation time by changing the materialization strategy of some key upstream models to table or incremental to keep a minimum amount of compute in memory and preventing nesting of views. If, for example, we change the materialization of view_4 from a view to a table, table_1 will have a shorter runtime as it will have less compilation to do.
The best practice to determine top candidates for changing materialization from view to table:
- if a view is used downstream my many models, change materialization to table
- if a view has more complex calculations (window functions, joins between many tables, etc.), change materialization to table
fct_exposure_parents_materializations (source) shows each model that is a direct parent of an exposure and is not materialized as a table in the warehouse.
Example
In this case, the parents of exposure_1 are not both materialized as tables -- dim_model_7 is ephemeral, while fct_model_6 is a table. This model would return a record for the dim_model_7 --> exposure_1 relationship.
Reason to Flag
Models that are referenced by an exposure are likely to be used heavily in downstream systems, and therefore need to be performant when queried. This model highlights instances where the models referenced by exposures are not either a table or incremental materialization.
How to Remediate
If necessary, update the materialized configuration on the models returned in fct_exposure_parents_materializations to either table or incremental. This can be done in individual model files using a config block, or for groups of models in your dbt_project.yml file. See the docs on model configurations for more info!
If there is a particular model or set of models that you do not want this package to execute, you can
disable these models as you would any other model in your dbt_project.yml file
# dbt_project.yml
models:
dbt_project_evaluator:
marts:
tests:
# disable entire test coverage suite
+enabled: false
dag:
# disable single DAG model
fct_model_fanout:
+enabled: false
Currently, this package uses different variables to adapt the models to your objectives and naming conventions. They can all be updated directly in dbt_project.yml
Coverage Variables
| variable | description | default |
|---|---|---|
test_coverage_pct |
the minimum acceptable test coverage percentage | 100% |
documentation_coverage_pct |
the minimum acceptable documentation coverage percentage | 100% |
# dbt_project.yml
# set your test and doc coverage to 75% instead
vars:
dbt_project_evaluator:
documentation_coverage_target: 75
test_coverage_target: 75DAG Variables
| variable | description | default |
|---|---|---|
models_fanout_threshold |
threshold for unacceptable model fanout for fct_model_fanout |
3 models |
# dbt_project.yml
# set your model fanout threshold to 10 instead of 3
vars:
dbt_project_evaluator:
models_fanout_threshold: 10Naming Convention Variables
| variable | description | default |
|---|---|---|
model_types |
a list of the different types of models that define the layers of your dbt project | staging, intermediate, marts, other |
staging_folder_name |
the name of the folder that contains your staging models | staging |
intermediate_folder_name |
the name of the folder that contains your intermediate models | intermediate |
marts_folder_name |
the name of the folder that contains your marts models | marts |
staging_prefixes |
the list of acceptable prefixes for your staging models | stg_ |
intermediate_prefixes |
the list of acceptable prefixes for your intermediate models | int_ |
marts_prefixes |
the list of acceptable prefixes for your marts models | fct_, dim_ |
other_prefixes |
the list of acceptable prefixes for your other models | rpt_ |
The model_types, <model_type>_folder_name, and <model_type>_prefixes variables allow the package to check if models in the different layers are in the correct folders and have a correct prefix in their name. The default model types are the ones we recommend in our dbt Labs Style Guide. If your model types are different, you can update the model_types variable and create new variables for <model_type>_folder_name and/or <model_type>_prefixes.
# dbt_project.yml
# add an additional model type "util"
vars:
dbt_project_evaluator:
model_types: ['staging', 'intermediate', 'marts', 'other', 'util']
util_folder_name: 'util'
util_prefixes: ['util_']Performance Variables
| variable | description | default |
|---|---|---|
chained_views_threshold |
threshold for unacceptable length of chain of views for fct_chained_views_dependencies |
4 |
# dbt_project.yml
# set your chained views threshold to 8 instead of 4
vars:
dbt_project_evaluator:
chained_views_threshold: 8Warehouse Specific Variables
| variable | description | default |
|---|---|---|
max_depth_dag |
limits the number of looped CTEs when computing the DAG end-to-end for BigQuery and Databricks/Spark compatibility | 9 |
Changing max_depth_dag number to a higher one might prevent the package from running properly on BigQuery and Databricks/Spark.
While the rules defined in this package are considered best practices, we realize that there might be exceptions to those rules and people might want to exclude given results to get passing tests despite not following all the recommendations.
An example would be excluding all models with names matching with stg_..._unioned from fct_multiple_sources_joined as we might want to union 2 different tables representing the same data in some of our staging models and we don't want the test to fail for those models.
The package offers the ability to define a seed called dbt_project_evaluator_exceptions.csv to list those exceptions we don't want to be reported. This seed must contain the following columns:
fct_name: the name of the fact table for which we want to define exceptions (Please note that it is not possible to exclude specific models for all thecoveragetests, but there are variables available to configure those to the particular users' needs)column_name: the column name fromfct_namewe will be looking at to define exceptionsid_to_exclude: the values (orlikepattern) we want to exclude forcolumn_namecomment: a field where people can document why a given exception is legitimate
The following section describes the steps to follow to configure exceptions.
With our previous example, the seed dbt_project_evaluator_exceptions.csv would look like:
fct_name,column_name,id_to_exclude,comment
fct_multiple_sources_joined,child,stg_%_unioned,Models called _unioned can union multiple sources
which looks like the following when loaded in the warehouse
| fct_name | column_name | id_to_exclude | comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| fct_multiple_sources_joined | child | stg_%_unioned | Models called _unioned can union multiple sources |
Only a single seed can exist with a given name. When using a custom one, we need to deactivate the one from the package by adding the following to our dbt_project.yml
# dbt_project.yml
seeds:
dbt_project_evaluator:
dbt_project_evaluator_exceptions:
+enabled: falseWe then run both the seed and the package by executing the following command:
dbt build --select package:dbt_project_evaluator dbt_project_evaluator_exceptions
Once you have addressed all current misalignments in your project (either by fixing them or configuring exceptions), you can use this package as a CI check to ensure code changes don't introduce new misalignments. The setup will vary based on whether you are using dbt Cloud or dbt Core, but the general steps are as follows:
By default the tests in this package are configured with "warn" severity, we can override that for our CI jobs with an environment variable:
- Create an environment variable to define the appropriate severity for each environment. In dbt Cloud, for example, we can easily create an environment variable
DBT_PROJECT_EVALUATOR_SEVERITYthat is set to "error" for the Continuous Integration environment and "warn" for all other environments:
Note: It is also possible to use an environment variable for dbt Core, but the actual implementation will depend on how dbt is orchestrated.
- Update you project.yml file to override the default severity for all tests in this package:
# dbt_project.yml
tests:
dbt_project_evaluator:
+severity: "{{ env_var('DBT_PROJECT_EVALUATOR_SEVERITY', 'warn') }}"Note: you could follow a similar process to disable the models in this package for your production environment
# dbt_project.yml
models:
dbt_project_evaluator:
+enabled: "{{ env_var('ENABLE_DBT_PROJECT_EVALUATOR', 'true') }}"Now, you can run this package as a step of your CI job/pipeline. In dbt Cloud, for example, you could update the commands of your CI job to:
dbt build --select state:modified+ --exclude package:dbt_project_evaluator
dbt build --select package:dbt_project_evaluator
Or, if you've configured any exceptions, to:
dbt build --select state:modified+ --exclude package:dbt_project_evaluator
dbt build --select package:dbt_project_evaluator dbt_project_evaluator_exceptions
Note: ensure you have properly set up your dbt Cloud CI job using deferral and a webhook trigger by following this documentation.
The model int_all_dag_relationships (source), created with the package, lists all the dbt nodes (models, exposures, sources, metrics, seeds, snapshots) along with all their dependencies (including indirect ones) and the path between them.
Building additional models and snapshots on top of this model could allow:
- creating a dashboard that provides
- a list of all the sources used by a given exposure
- a list of all the exposures or metrics using a given source
- the dependencies between different models
- building metrics/KPIs on top of a dbt project
- evolution of the number of models over time
- evolution of the number of metrics and exposures over time
- getting insights on potential refactoring work
- looking at the longest "chains" of models in a project
- reviewing models with many/few direct dependents
- identifying potential bottlenecks
BigQuery current support for recursive CTEs is limited and Databricks SQL doesn't support recursive CTEs.
For those Data Warehouses, the model int_all_dag_relationships needs to be created by looping CTEs instead. The number of loops is configured with max_depth_dag and defaulted to 9. This means that dependencies between models of more than 9 levels of separation won't show in the model int_all_dag_relationships but tests on the DAG will still be correct. With a number of loops higher than 9 BigQuery sometimes raises an error saying the query is too complex.
If you'd like to add models to flag new areas, please update this README and add an integration test (more details here).