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
In the foundational dbt Constraints work, we added a boolean config named constraints_enabled that “turns on” contracting for this model. Given that the scope of model contracts is broader than “constraints,” and that dbt’s enforcement may go beyond the built-in behavior of analytical data platforms, we should rename this config to contracted instead.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I recommend the syntax be: contract: true | false because contracted invokes imagery of pregnancy(a beautiful human experience but dissonant related to data contracts) at first glance and is in past tense, which may confuse the reader. Whenever the term data contracts come up, it's a noun in plural or singular, not a verb.
I'd vote for contract (singular) over contracts (false), given some of the recent discussion in #6726 about how this is a "producer-side" contract, and there's going to be exactly one (or zero) per model.
jtcohen6
changed the title
[CT-1916] Rename 'constraints_enabled' to 'contracts'
[CT-1916] Rename 'constraints_enabled' to 'contract'
Feb 14, 2023
In the foundational dbt Constraints work, we added a boolean config named
constraints_enabled
that “turns on” contracting for this model. Given that the scope of model contracts is broader than “constraints,” and that dbt’s enforcement may go beyond the built-in behavior of analytical data platforms, we should rename this config tocontracted
instead.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: