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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[TIDY-FIRST] Fix isort for dbt-semantic-interfaces #10394

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 2, 2024
Merged

[TIDY-FIRST] Fix isort for dbt-semantic-interfaces #10394

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 2, 2024
+72 −80

Conversation

QMalcolm
Copy link
Contributor

@QMalcolm QMalcolm commented Jul 2, 2024

resolves #N/A

Problem

We've been grouping internal package imports by using isort. However, imports from dbt_semantic_interfaces weren't being grouped because I typo'd it as dbt_semantic_interfaces in the isort config.

Solution

Fix the typo and rerun isort

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/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

QMalcolm added 2 commits July 1, 2024 16:27
@QMalcolm
Correct isort configuration to include dbt-semantic-interfaces as i…
0a34228 
…nternal

We thought we were already doing this. However, we accidentally missed the last
`s` of `dbt-semantic-interfaces`, so imports from dbt-semantic-interfaces were not
being identified as an internal package by isort. This fixes that.
@QMalcolm
Run isort using updated configs to mark dbt-semantic-interfaces as …
27847c6 
…included
@QMalcolm QMalcolm added Skip Changelog Skips GHA to check for changelog file artifact_minor_upgrade To bypass the CI check by confirming that the change is not breaking labels Jul 2, 2024
@QMalcolm QMalcolm requested a review from a team as a code owner July 2, 2024 17:54
@QMalcolm QMalcolm added the tidy_first "Tidy First" incremental cleanup changes label Jul 2, 2024
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 2, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.75%. Comparing base (a94027a) to head (27847c6).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10394      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.83%   88.75%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         180      180              
  Lines       22526    22526              
==========================================
- Hits        20012    19994      -18     
- Misses       2514     2532      +18
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 86.02% <100.00%> (-0.16%) ⬇️
unit 62.11% <95.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

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

Components Coverage Δ
Unit Tests 62.11% <95.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Integration Tests 86.02% <100.00%> (-0.16%) ⬇️

emmyoop
emmyoop requested changes Jul 2, 2024
View reviewed changes
.isort.cfg
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
[settings]
profile=black
extend_skip_glob=.github/*,third-party-stubs/*,scripts/*
known_first_party=dbt,dbt_adapters,dbt_common,dbt_extractor,dbt_semantic_interface
known_first_party=dbt,dbt_adapters,dbt_common,dbt_extractor,dbt_semantic_interfaces
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should snowplow_tracker also be included here? We maintain our own fork of it (minimal-snowplow-tracker)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a good question 🤔 I do not know. We can, but it feels in a gray area. It is a fork that we maintain, that we don't appear to sync. However, it also overrides the name space of a non-internal package. If you think it's cut and dry that it should be included, happy to make the change. However, if you also feel that it's in a gray area, maybe it warrants more discussion and shouldn't be considered blocking for this PR.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After talking offline I agree we should solve this in #8409

@emmyoop emmyoop self-requested a review July 2, 2024 18:26
@QMalcolm
Copy link
Contributor Author

QMalcolm commented Jul 2, 2024

@cla-bot check

@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla:yes label Jul 2, 2024
@cla-bot cla-bot
Copy link

cla-bot bot commented Jul 2, 2024

The cla-bot has been summoned, and re-checked this pull request!

@QMalcolm
Copy link
Contributor Author

QMalcolm commented Jul 2, 2024

Good bot

@QMalcolm QMalcolm merged commit 37e2725 into main Jul 2, 2024
82 of 88 checks passed
@QMalcolm QMalcolm deleted the qmalcolm--fix-isort-for-dbt-semantic-interfaces branch July 2, 2024 18:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@emmyoop emmyoop emmyoop approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
artifact_minor_upgrade To bypass the CI check by confirming that the change is not breaking cla:yes Skip Changelog Skips GHA to check for changelog file tidy_first "Tidy First" incremental cleanup changes
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@QMalcolm @emmyoop