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
The old/deprecated way of having meta was putting it directly on a node. However, awhile back we deprecated that paradigm and moved to nesting meta under a node's config. For reasoning I am not aware of, this never made it to Macro nodes. We should begin supporting the "best practice" path
Acceptance criteria
Macro nodes have a meta property under their config property
During parsing, flat meta specifications should end up under the config.meta
Suggested Tests
Macro meta can be specified in the dbt_project.yaml config specification
In a macro definition, people can specify meta directly on an macro or under a macro's config, both should end up in the macro's config.meta
Impact to Other Teams
Change impacts Artifacts team (change to the artifacts)
Will backports be required?
No
Context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@jtcohen6, exact same question as on #9446. I noticed on #7440 you mentioned in a comment that we intentionally didn't move meta under config for a subset of node types. Would you be able to speak to why that was? I know we did this intentionally, but without the context it at first looks like an inconsistency.
Housekeeping
Short description
The old/deprecated way of having meta was putting it directly on a node. However, awhile back we deprecated that paradigm and moved to nesting meta under a node's config. For reasoning I am not aware of, this never made it to Macro nodes. We should begin supporting the "best practice" path
Acceptance criteria
config.meta
Suggested Tests
dbt_project.yaml
config specificationconfig.meta
Impact to Other Teams
Change impacts Artifacts team (change to the artifacts)
Will backports be required?
No
Context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: