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

ADX-949 ADX-960 ckanext-validation upgrade #103

Merged
merged 0 commits into from
Aug 8, 2023

Conversation

ChasNelson1990
Copy link
Member

@ChasNelson1990 ChasNelson1990 commented Aug 8, 2023

Description

Deployment Note because we are essentially doing a 150+ commit rebase onto the latest frictionless/ckanext-validation we may want to close this PR with Git-Fu and not with a squash merge. Probably development should be temporarily renamed 2023-08-08_development_retired (or similar) and this branch renamed development. The same would then happen when merging to the main branch.

Note I believe tests do actually pass (see #98) and that the failures here are because of the massive discrepancy between development and this branch.

Foreign Key Validation

The main bulk of this work is foreign key validation; see ckan#86.

See ADX-960 for the main ticket on foreign-key validation.

See ckan#84 for the community discussion on foreign key validation.

Comparison between fjelltopp/ckanext-validation@development and frictionlessdata/[email protected] for context can be found here: development...frictionlessdata:ckanext-validation:v2.0.0

!BREAKING CHANGE!

Previously unaids_data_specifications used schema names for schema["foreignKeys"][i]["reference"]["resource"] but this didn't generalise as it very much assumes our fork of ckanext-scheming. Instead, I changed this to use what we call resource_type... I think this has the pro that we won't have to update the our table_schemas if we updates our package_schemas - foreign keys will now always follow the package_schema whereas (theroretically) you could have had a table_schema with a foreign key using a different schema version than a package_schema, which seemed silly.

relates fjelltopp/adx_deploy#350
relates fjelltopp/adx_develop#132
relates fjelltopp/ckanext-unaids#271 - Fjelltopp-specific logic and custom badges
relates fjelltopp/unaids_data_specifications#58 - potential breaking change

Checklist

  • The Jira ticket for this issue has been updated to "Ready to Review" or equivalent.
  • I have developed these changes in discussion with the appropriate project manager.
  • My code follows the general Fjelltopp documentation (see Confluence).
  • I have made corresponding changes to the Fjelltopp documentation (see Confluence).
  • I have rebased this branch with master.
  • New dependency changes have been committed.
  • I have added automated tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
  • New and existing tests pass locally with my changes.
  • My changes generate no new warnings.
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code.
  • I have assigned at least one reviewer.

@ChasNelson1990 ChasNelson1990 merged commit 2145205 into development Aug 8, 2023
@ChasNelson1990 ChasNelson1990 deleted the frictionless-upgrade-feature-branch branch August 8, 2023 14:18
@ChasNelson1990 ChasNelson1990 mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2023
17 tasks
@ChasNelson1990 ChasNelson1990 restored the frictionless-upgrade-feature-branch branch August 8, 2023 14:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants