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

join_to_timespine is incorrectly indented in the simple metric example #6685

Closed
1 task done
joellabes opened this issue Dec 18, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #6686
Closed
1 task done

join_to_timespine is incorrectly indented in the simple metric example #6685

joellabes opened this issue Dec 18, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #6686
Labels
content Improvements or additions to content improvement Use this when an area of the docs needs improvement as it's currently unclear

Comments

@joellabes
Copy link
Contributor

joellabes commented Dec 18, 2024

Contributions

  • I have read the contribution docs, and understand what's expected of me.

Link to the page on docs.getdbt.com requiring updates

As reported by friend of the show Amanda:

the join_to_timespine parameter is at the same level of indentation as type_params, but I found that dbt wouldn't compile correctly until I nested join_to_timespine under the measure block

I looked into it, and the filter_to_timespine property was accidentally outdented in #5409 while fixing the indentation for filters.

What part(s) of the page would you like to see updated?

It should be:

metrics:
  - name: cancellations
    description: The number of cancellations
    type: simple
    label: Cancellations
    type_params:
      measure:
        name: cancellations_usd  # Specify the measure you are creating a proxy for.
        fill_nulls_with: 0
        join_to_timespine: true
    filter: |
      {{ Dimension('order__value')}} > 100 and {{Dimension('user__acquisition')}} is not null

Additional information

No response

@joellabes joellabes added content Improvements or additions to content improvement Use this when an area of the docs needs improvement as it's currently unclear labels Dec 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
content Improvements or additions to content improvement Use this when an area of the docs needs improvement as it's currently unclear
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant