You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have searched the existing issues, and I could not find an existing issue for this feature
I am requesting a straightforward extension of existing dbt functionality, rather than a Big Idea better suited to a discussion
Describe the feature
Currently any change to a column's data type in a contracted model is treated as a breaking change, but a casing change such as decimal(6,5) to DECIMAL(6,5) that would not actually break the model, testing or anything downstream of it, should not be classed as a breaking change.
Other considerations may be when spaces are added/removed (such as after the comma in the above example), or other examples whereby the data type has not actually changed and therefore contract has not been 'broken'.
Describe alternatives you've considered
The only current alternative I can think of is to create a new version of the model and then deprecate the old version, but this seems like it should be unnecessary for the changes described above.
Who will this benefit?
Anybody making changes to contract enforced models, particularly those whose projects have a low maturity and are therefore making lots of quick tweaks which would be hindered by continuous version adds.
Are you interested in contributing this feature?
No response
Anything else?
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is this your first time submitting a feature request?
Describe the feature
Currently any change to a column's data type in a contracted model is treated as a breaking change, but a casing change such as decimal(6,5) to DECIMAL(6,5) that would not actually break the model, testing or anything downstream of it, should not be classed as a breaking change.
Other considerations may be when spaces are added/removed (such as after the comma in the above example), or other examples whereby the data type has not actually changed and therefore contract has not been 'broken'.
Describe alternatives you've considered
The only current alternative I can think of is to create a new version of the model and then deprecate the old version, but this seems like it should be unnecessary for the changes described above.
Who will this benefit?
Anybody making changes to contract enforced models, particularly those whose projects have a low maturity and are therefore making lots of quick tweaks which would be hindered by continuous version adds.
Are you interested in contributing this feature?
No response
Anything else?
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: