Written golden record are getting by default the ingestionDateTime from stagingTable when it should consider current_datetime
Description
DAEN - Bug default text according to the team DoR (Definition of Ready)
02 - PROBLEM (GIVE MORE DETAILS HERE ABOUT SCENARIO OR PAIN TO BE RESOLVED?):
- When writing the Golden Records, we are not saving the ingestion date time as when the record is written to BQ, we are getting the same ingestion date/time defined on ST.
12 - EXPECTED BEHAVIOR (WHAT SHOULD BE THE DEFAULT BEHAVIOR LINKED WITH THE STEPS ABOVE):
- When writing golden records we should ignore the ingestionDatetime coming from staging record. It always should consider the current_datetime().
Activity
Show:
Details
Priority
HighAssignee
Cindy de Araujo Soares Moore
Reporter
Robson Thanael Poffo
Labels
CAROL_BACKLOG_REVIEWPLANNEDRELEASE_3
Due Date
11 December 2023
Fix versions
CAPL_3.96
Components
SQL_PIPELINES | DATA_PROCESSING
Created
14 November 2023, 11:21
Updated
12 December 2023, 19:31
More fields
Created: 14 November 2023, 14:21
Updated:
12 December 2023, 22:31
This issue was automatically transitioned to DONE after being deployed to production on Github.
https://github.com/totvslabs/mdm/releases/tag/v4.85.1
No associated issue on JIRA TOTVS BRAZIL.
This issue was automatically transitioned to WAITING DEPLOY, as its PR was just merged into master branch in Github.
Github user douglascoimbra has just approved a PR (added as Shard Assignee in this Jira issue).
fix: https://totvslabs.atlassian.net/browse/CAPL-5021#icft=CAPL-5021 setting _ingestionDatetime in SQL Processing
@Robson Thanael Poffo ,
@Geny Isam Hamud Herrera , @Cindy de Araujo Soares Moore , @Emerson Venancio
This issue was planned to be delivered until 2023-12-11. You can check that by consulting the issue in the Due Date field.
Dates already planned for this issue: 2023-11-20, 2023-12-11
If External Issue Link field is filled, customer was also informed on JIRA TOTVS.
This issue was automatically transitioned to QA REVIEW, as its PR was just approved in Github.
@Cindy de Araujo Soares Moore The card has been validated by the QA tam. It is pending only the code review. cc @Gabriel DAmore Marciano
FORCING THE DATE MODEL TO RECEIVE THE STAGING INGESTION DATIME
DM CORRECTLY BEING WRITTEN WITH ITS OWN INGESTION DATETIME
SQL PROCESSING STANDARD ALONG WITH REJECTED RECORDS
STAGING INGESTIONDATETIME VS DATAMODEL
REJECTED
UNIFIED
CUSTOMER
Voltado ao double-check do campo `IngestionDataTime` para datamodels:
Confirmado que na master o campo NAO eh preenchido, ficando como `NULL`:
Edited on Slack
Voltado ao double-check do campo `IngestionDataTime` para datamodels:
Confirmado que na master o campo nao eh preenchido, ficando como null:
Edited on Slack
Voltado ao double-check do campo `IngestionDataTime` para datamodels:
COnfirmado que na master o campo nao eh preenchido, ficando como null:
Sent by Slack
@Robson Thanael Poffo ,
@Gabriel DAmore Marciano ,
@Geny Isam Hamud Herrera ,
This issue was planned to be delivered until 2023-11-20. You can check that by consulting the issue in the Due Date field.
Dates already planned for this issue: 2023-11-20
If External Issue Link field is filled, customer was also informed on JIRA TOTVS.