Great! Lmk if you need help finalizing the tests. Eventually we'll refactor to use dbt's newly released unit test functionality.

@jerome-laurent-pro check out the latest commit. You just needed to add the macro to unit tests that call the macro.

The tests still fail, but for a valid reason: What value is a user expected to enter into the conversion_events dbt variable? Either they need to enter the re-formatted event name or you'll need to update this line of code in stg_ga4__page_conversions and stg_ga4__session_conversions_daily:

{% for ce in var('conversion_events',[]) %}
    , countif(event_name = '{{ce}}') as {{ga4.valid_column_name(ce)}}_count
    {% endfor %}

Notice that the countif statement uses the original event name.

You just needed to add the macro to unit tests that call the macro.

Thank you!

Either they need to enter the re-formatted event name or you'll need to update this line of code

The idea was to use the official event_name from GA4 as it'll be named like this in the raw data. Users shouldn't have to guess the future safe name while entering the variable in the project's yaml.
So countif(event_name = '{{ce}}') will still count the events, but the new column will have a safe name (preventing dbt run from failing due to an incorrectly named column in the generated SQL)

The modification you did in the test was creating an error, because the safe column name for my-page-view is my_page_view_count. The aggregated expectation in the test was still named page_view_count, hence the failure in the test.
Unrecognized name: my_page_view_count; Did you mean page_view_count? at [7:21]
Using page-view works just fine.

In the other test, it seems that the project_config_update was erasing the static_incremental_days variable set in conftest.py.

Adding it again fix the error. It seems like conftest isn't really working as I expected, otherwise I assume we wouldn't have had to do a project_config_update in each test.

@adamribaudo-velir, let me know if you think the way I implemented the functionality doesn't make sense or if you want me to add anything else.

Ah! Thanks, I think I misunderstood the change a bit. And sorry for inadvertently breaking the test while I fixed it 😓

Let me run through an example on my end, but I expect to merge this by end of week.

Confirmed this works as expected