Closed remigabillet closed 3 years ago
@z3z1ma most of #24 was implemented in #19 so this PR is much smaller.
Looking good @remigabillet thanks for rebasing. I will review more deeply this later today with any code comments (its a minor change so it wont be too bad). One question that came to mind right away that we already know, makes the folder parser a less robust option in comparison to manifest parsing, is a block like this (I personally use this in a production config). Let me know thoughts on this.
version: 2
sources:
- name: modelling
schema: '{{ target.schema }}'
loader: python
loaded_at_field: model_ran_at
tables:
- name: fitness_model_3
identifier: model_gen_f_daily
description: '# Modelling data for Gen E -> Gen G Hydropanels using a linear model based on TMY solar data'
@z3z1ma Good question. I feel that handing jinja variable substitutions is beyond the scope for DbtFolder. It's inherently limited. At that point, the manifest file should be used.
@z3z1ma thanks for the suggestions!
Looks good to me, if @z3z1ma is happy then I'll merge.
@gouline
Yep, looks great. I will rebase my fork after this is implemented.
Thanks @gouline and @z3z1ma!
New take on #24 since the underlying code changed so much since #24 was open.