Default LookML view table to the view name when unspecified#244
Default LookML view table to the view name when unspecified#244nicosuave wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 84410ae8a8
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| # via extends or are abstract (extension: required). | ||
| if ( | ||
| table is None | ||
| and sql is None |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For views that do have a derived_table block but not a sql or explore_source variant the adapter understands (for example derived_table: { sql_create: ... } or create_process), sql stays None, so this fallback now assigns table = name. That imports a derived table as a physical table named after the view and generated queries target the wrong relation instead of preserving or flagging the unsupported derived table; the fallback should also require derived_table is None.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
nicosuave
force-pushed
the
fix/lookml-default-view-table
branch
from
84410ae to
92c08af
Compare
nicosuave
force-pushed
the
fix/lookml-export-aggregations
branch
from
adf80bc to
e4e46ef
Compare
nicosuave
force-pushed
the
fix/lookml-default-view-table
branch
from
92c08af to
d2cb276
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d2cb276882
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| table is None | ||
| and sql is None | ||
| and not view_def.get("derived_table") | ||
| and not extends |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a view extends a parent that also omitted sql_table_name, this guard prevents the child from ever getting its own default while the parent has already been assigned table = name; for view: base { ... } plus view: child { extends: [base] ... }, Sidemantic now compiles child against base instead of child. Looker applies defaults only after the merged view is interpreted, so an extended view with no explicit sql_table_name assumes the extending view name (see https://docs.cloud.google.com/looker/docs/reusing-code-with-extends#implementation_details_for_extends); this needs to distinguish explicit parent tables from synthetic defaults or apply the default after inheritance.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
nicosuave
force-pushed
the
fix/lookml-export-aggregations
branch
from
e4e46ef to
5efe508
Compare
nicosuave
force-pushed
the
fix/lookml-default-view-table
branch
from
d2cb276 to
5efe508
Compare
A LookML view with no sql_table_name and no derived_table implicitly uses a table named after the view (Looker's default behavior), but the adapter left table unset, so importing such a view crashed layer validation with "Model must have a table". Default table to the view name in that case, while leaving refinements, extends-based views, and abstract (extension: required) views untouched.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5af0072a7d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| and not name.startswith("+") | ||
| and view_def.get("extension") != "required" | ||
| and (dimensions or measures) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the base view is fieldless and a +view refinement supplies the dimensions/measures, neither parsed model gets the implicit table: the base fails the (dimensions or measures) guard while the refinement is excluded by name.startswith("+"). After merge_model the final view has queryable fields but still no table, so adding or compiling that valid LookML pattern (view: orders {} plus view: +orders { dimension: id ... }) still fails validation even though Looker would default it to orders; the default needs to run on the merged view or otherwise account for fields added by refinements.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Part of the LookML adapter correctness series. Stacked on #243 (base =
fix/lookml-export-aggregations).In Looker, a view with no
sql_table_nameand noderived_tableimplicitly queries a table named after the view. The adapter lefttableunset, so importing such a (perfectly valid) view crashed withModelValidationError: Model must have a table.Changes
tableto the view name when there is nosql_table_name, noderived_table, noextends, it is not a refinement (+view), and notextension: required.These exclusions preserve correct behavior for abstract/extended/refinement views, which legitimately have no table of their own.