Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

exclude hook results from results in on-run-end context #10885

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 18, 2024

Conversation

ChenyuLInx
Copy link
Contributor

@ChenyuLInx ChenyuLInx commented Oct 18, 2024

This brings the results in on-run-end back to before https://github.com/dbt-labs/dbt-core/pull/10699/files was introduced.
We can introduce this behind a behavior flag as needed later on.

Problem

Solution

Checklist

  • I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me.
  • I have run this code in development, and it appears to resolve the stated issue.
  • This PR includes tests, or tests are not required or relevant for this PR.
  • This PR has no interface changes (e.g., macros, CLI, logs, JSON artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc.) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX.
  • This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions.

@ChenyuLInx ChenyuLInx requested a review from a team as a code owner October 18, 2024 20:56
@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla:yes label Oct 18, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for your pull request! We could not find a changelog entry for this change. For details on how to document a change, see the contributing guide.

@ChenyuLInx
Copy link
Contributor Author

@graciegoheen We should backport this to 1.9 since this and the previous change to hook behavior should be shipped together.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 18, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.15%. Comparing base (ba6c7ba) to head (7e0f572).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10885      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.18%   89.15%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         183      183              
  Lines       23443    23443              
==========================================
- Hits        20908    20901       -7     
- Misses       2535     2542       +7     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 86.43% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️
unit 62.12% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
Unit Tests 62.12% <ø> (ø)
Integration Tests 86.43% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️

@peterallenwebb
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good.

@ChenyuLInx ChenyuLInx force-pushed the cl/exclude_run_results_of_main branch from 7358dbb to 7e0f572 Compare October 18, 2024 21:47
@ChenyuLInx ChenyuLInx merged commit a0674db into main Oct 18, 2024
56 checks passed
@ChenyuLInx ChenyuLInx deleted the cl/exclude_run_results_of_main branch October 18, 2024 22:07
Copy link
Contributor

The backport to 1.9.latest failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-1.9.latest 1.9.latest
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-1.9.latest
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-10885-to-1.9.latest
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 a0674db8400673d7dd4ebf7597dd82b3349337ce
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-10885-to-1.9.latest
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-1.9.latest

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 1.9.latest and the compare/head branch is backport-10885-to-1.9.latest.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants