Make --event-time-start and --event-time-end mutually required
#10878
Conversation
In the next commit we'll be adding a validation that requires that `--event-time-start` and `--event-time-end` are mutually required. That is, whenever one is specified, the other is required. In that world, `--event-time-start` will never need to be compared against the "current" time, because it'll never be run in conjunction with the "current" time.
| @@ -362,17 +361,26 @@ def _validate_event_time_configs(self) -> None: | |||
| getattr(self, "EVENT_TIME_END") if hasattr(self, "EVENT_TIME_END") else None | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| if event_time_start is not None and event_time_end is not None: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's probably easier to see what changed if viewing commit by commit. Git didn't handle displaying the changes made across the 2 commits very gracefully.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10878 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.17% 89.19% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 183 183
Lines 23491 23489 -2
==========================================
+ Hits 20947 20951 +4
+ Misses 2544 2538 -6
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
…art/end` reqs We made it such that when `event_time_start` is specified, `event_time_end` must also be specified (and vice versa). This broke numerous tests, in a few different ways: 1. There were tests that used `--event-time-start` without `--event-time-end` butg were using event_time_start essentially as the `begin` time for models being initially built or full refreshed. These tests could simply drop the `--event-time-start` and instead rely on the `begin` value. 2. There was a test that was trying to load a subset of the data _excluding_ some data which would be captured by using `begin`. In this test we added an appropriate `--event-time-end` as the `--event-time-start` was necessary to statisfy what the test was testing 3. There was a test which was trying to ensure that two microbatch models would be given the same "current" time. Because we wanted to ensure the "current" time code path was used, we couldn't add `--event-time-end` to resolve the problem, thus we needed to remove the `--event-time-start` that was being used. However, this led to the test being incredibly slow. This was resolved by switching the relevant microbatch models from having `batch_size`s of `day` to instead have `year`. This solution should be good enough for roughly ~40 years? We'll figure out a better solution then, so see ya in 2064. Assuming I haven't died before my 70th birthday, feel free to ping me to get this taken care of.
|
hey @QMalcolm , sorry for the add'l question but do we need to update the docs here? https://docs.getdbt.com/docs/build/incremental-microbatch#timezones |
@mirnawong1 Questions are great! No need to apologize 🙂 If the question is in reference to timezones (the section linked) then no update is needed as UTC will still be assumed. If the question is in reference to the page overall, yes we should probably update the document somewhere to note that |
|
docs pr here to address this: https://github.com/dbt-labs/docs.getdbt.com/pull/6351/files |
QMalcolm
deleted the
qmalcolm--10874-make-event-time-start-end-mutually-required
branch
this pr adds updates to incremental microbatch per core prs: - [#10878](dbt-labs/dbt-core#10878) - makes it so --event-time-start adn --event-time-end are mutually required. - [#10876](dbt-labs/dbt-core#10876) - changes lookback default window to 1 (from 0) [ X ] dbt Core PRs must get merged first before docs pr is merged <!-- vercel-deployment-preview --> --- 🚀 Deployment available! Here are the direct links to the updated files: - https://docs-getdbt-com-git-update-microbatch-dbt-labs.vercel.app/docs/build/incremental-microbatch <!-- end-vercel-deployment-preview -->
Resolves #10874
Problem
--event-time-startand--event-time-endwere not mutually required, which led to some weird/bad behavior if only one was specifiedSolution
Make it so that one being specified necessitates the other.
Checklist