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

Eliminate the NodeRelation class in favor of reusing DeferRelation #8067

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

peterallenwebb
Copy link
Contributor

resolves #7823

Problem

Changes the name of a field expected by MetricFlow from schema_name to schema in order to keep plumbing as simple as possible.

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

@peterallenwebb peterallenwebb requested review from a team as code owners July 10, 2023 22:37
@peterallenwebb peterallenwebb requested review from heysweet and emmyoop and removed request for a team July 10, 2023 22:37
@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla:yes label Jul 10, 2023
@github-actions
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.

Copy link
Contributor

@heysweet heysweet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I pinged the others in Cloud Artifacts, but just wanted to call out that @thisispvb and I are working on Explorer, embedded on Cloud Artifacts. We're more than happy to help out here, but just wanted to make sure you knew that we were more disconnected from ingestion and Discovery API serving itself

@jtcohen6
Copy link
Contributor

@peterallenwebb Should we close this PR, since we decided against implementing it and living with the inconsistency (given high cost & lesser benefit)? #7823 (comment)

@peterallenwebb peterallenwebb deleted the paw/node-relation-changes branch May 16, 2024 14:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[SPIKE] [CT-2669] Revisit NodeRelation
3 participants