Closed iacobus closed 5 years ago
thanks @iacobus. I will look into it.
Sorry guys, thought the semver change would be enough to prevent dependency issues. Let me know if there's something I could do to help here.
In particular, it might make sense, for the file/files construct in particular, to expose an option to choose between object/array. (I would however argue in favor of only the object representation of other constructs within lookml itself)
update: Josh Temple has just open sourced a pure Python LookML parser (https://github.com/joshtemple/lkml).
I am currently working to swap out the node parser with this Python one. I now have my test suite passing, so long as I don't have dupe keys in models (https://github.com/joshtemple/lkml/issues/6) or hanging commas (https://github.com/joshtemple/lkml/issues/5).
If I/Josh can fix those issues in the python parser, then I will make a new lookml-tools
release.
@iacobus I've released v2.0.0. This uses a Python LookML parser so that there is no longer a dependency on this node parser.
👍 will report if I encounter trouble. Thanks for the responsiveness @weightwatchers-carlanderson and @fabio-looker.
Hi. I believe this commit https://github.com/fabio-looker/node-lookml-parser/commit/ad755f2958c5717cb77971b3bcf3e262d0974382, included in version 5.0.0 of
lookml-parser
, breaks both the linter and the grapher (haven't tried the updater) due to simpler schema of the JSON representation of the LookML files. Apparently they removed thefiles
array in favor of a dictionary, calling out the breaking change. With 5.0.0 you get the following error.Reverting to
lookml-parser
version 4.0.0 resolves this issue.