-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.9k
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
fix: don't strip SQL comments in Explore #28363
Conversation
Following up in the footsteps of #27725 as comments can be used as a way to pass the database engine hints, or for logging purposes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mistercrunch I agree with this approach. I think historically we did this to aid with traversing the sqlparse
AST, but as we migrate to SQLGlot I suspect this requirement can likely be relaxed.
Found some comments in the code around stripping comments prior to checkit |
This reverts commit c618767.
Here I'm trying to recreate the issue that led to revert #28363 in #28567, likely some sort of trailing comment of some kind. This is DRAFT for now until I can reproduce the issue, write a covering test for it, and address it. First attempt at creating a problematic virtual dataset was the following ->
Here I'm trying to recreate the issue that led to revert #28363 in #28567, likely some sort of trailing comment of some kind. This is DRAFT for now until I can reproduce the issue, write a covering test for it, and address it. First attempt at creating a problematic virtual dataset was the following ->
Here I'm trying to recreate the issue that led to revert #28363 in #28567, likely some sort of trailing comment of some kind. This is DRAFT for now until I can reproduce the issue, write a covering test for it, and address it. First attempt at creating a problematic virtual dataset was the following ->
Here I'm trying to recreate the issue that led to revert #28363 in #28567, likely some sort of trailing comment of some kind. This is DRAFT for now until I can reproduce the issue, write a covering test for it, and address it. First attempt at creating a problematic virtual dataset was the following ->
Following up in the footsteps of #27725 as comments can be used as a way to pass the database engine hints, or for logging purposes.