Redact values from logs due 'duplicate key' error #773
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jaypeedevlin
changed the title
dbeatty10
reviewed
Sep 14, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jaypeedevlin thanks for raising this PR 🤩 !
Three things to get this passing CI:
- Code suggestion to expect
dbt runto fail when it raises the error - Code suggestion to apply the expected code format
- Add a changelog entry via
changie new
Just let @dataders or myself if you want an assist with any of the above.
tests/functional/duplicate_key_unlogged/test_duplicate_key_not_in_exceptions.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]>
|
@dbeatty10 thanks for the review — I believe this should now be good to go. Assuming the merge goes through if there's any possibility to get this backported to 1.6.x that would be a massive help for us! |
dbeatty10
added
the
ready_for_review
mikealfare
reviewed
Sep 15, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR @jaypeedevlin! I just had two suggestions, otherwise I like the approach.
tests/functional/redact_log_values/test_duplicate_key_not_in_exceptions.py
Show resolved
Hide resolved
colin-rogers-dbt
approved these changes
Sep 18, 2023
dataders
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 19, 2023
* Add failing test * Fix model test naming * Add redaction looping logic * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> * Add changelog * Fix test case * Rename test class * Colocate redaction tests * Ignore if dbt run passes or fails * Materialize as a table instead of a view to trigger an error * Expect the run to fail with a specific error message * Reverse order of dict, assert that sensitive data is replaced * Add newline --------- Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mike Alfare <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 9fa8de2)
dataders
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 19, 2023
* Add failing test * Fix model test naming * Add redaction looping logic * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> * Add changelog * Fix test case * Rename test class * Colocate redaction tests * Ignore if dbt run passes or fails * Materialize as a table instead of a view to trigger an error * Expect the run to fail with a specific error message * Reverse order of dict, assert that sensitive data is replaced * Add newline --------- Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mike Alfare <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 9fa8de2)
This was referenced Sep 19, 2023
McKnight-42
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 25, 2023
* Add failing test * Fix model test naming * Add redaction looping logic * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> * Add changelog * Fix test case * Rename test class * Colocate redaction tests * Ignore if dbt run passes or fails * Materialize as a table instead of a view to trigger an error * Expect the run to fail with a specific error message * Reverse order of dict, assert that sensitive data is replaced * Add newline --------- Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mike Alfare <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 9fa8de2) Co-authored-by: Josh Devlin <[email protected]>
McKnight-42
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 25, 2023
* Add failing test * Fix model test naming * Add redaction looping logic * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> * Add changelog * Fix test case * Rename test class * Colocate redaction tests * Ignore if dbt run passes or fails * Materialize as a table instead of a view to trigger an error * Expect the run to fail with a specific error message * Reverse order of dict, assert that sensitive data is replaced * Add newline --------- Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mike Alfare <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 9fa8de2) Co-authored-by: Josh Devlin <[email protected]>
philippe-boyd-maxa
pushed a commit
to maxa-ai/dbt-snowflake
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2023
* Add failing test * Fix model test naming * Add redaction looping logic * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> * Add changelog * Fix test case * Rename test class * Colocate redaction tests * Ignore if dbt run passes or fails * Materialize as a table instead of a view to trigger an error * Expect the run to fail with a specific error message * Reverse order of dict, assert that sensitive data is replaced * Add newline --------- Co-authored-by: Doug Beatty <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mike Alfare <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
resolves #772
Docs N/A
Assuming this is merged, it would be amazing if this could be backported into 1.6.x so we can take advantage in our org without having to go through a minor version upgrade (which there's a lot of work involved given our scale)
Problem
We are leaking raw data into logs in certain cases.
Solution
Copies the method that exists, placing code into a loop to handle any other future cases that may arise.
Checklist