#3682 Changed how tables and views are generated to be able to use differen…

[AndreasTA-AW]

…t options

resolves #3682

Description

I added a new function called common where common options can be put, otherwise views and tables are separated from each other to be able to add either for both or a single one of them.

Not sure if it's good enough or what you say. I ran the tests but didn't touch them.

Checklist

• I have signed the CLA
• I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the stated issue
• This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for this PR
• I have updated the CHANGELOG.md and added information about my change to the "dbt next" section.

[cla-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, don't hesitate to ping @drewbanin.

CLA has not been signed by users: @AndreasTA-FF

[AndreasTA-AW]

I'll ping here. Would be nice if someone looks at this. I will sign the agreement when we think this will eventually be merged :)

[jtcohen6]

Thanks for this @AndreasTA-AW! The code looks good to me. Appreciate the ping, and sorry for the delay getting back to you.

As far as testing this change, I think a unit test in the style of these ones should be sufficient. How about something like:

    def test_table_kms_key_name(self):
        adapter = self.get_adapter('oauth')
        mock_config = create_autospec(
            RuntimeConfigObject)
        config={'kms_key_name': 'some_key'}
        mock_config.get.side_effect = lambda name: config.get(name)

        expected = {
            'kms_key_name': "'some_key'"
        }
        actual = adapter.get_table_options(mock_config, node={}, temporary=False)
        self.assertEqual(expected, actual)

        
    def test_view_kms_key_name(self):
        adapter = self.get_adapter('oauth')
        mock_config = create_autospec(
            RuntimeConfigObject)
        config={'kms_key_name': 'some_key'}
        mock_config.get.side_effect = lambda name: config.get(name)

        expected = {}
        actual = adapter.get_view_options(mock_config, node={})
        self.assertEqual(expected, actual)

After adding that test, could you:

• Pull changes from develop
• Add a changelog entry below ## dbt 0.21.0 (Release TBD)
• Sign the CLA

[AndreasTA-AW]

The tests looks great to me, I'll add those and make sure they pass. I'll then finish the rest of the tasks you added.

Thanks for looking in to it!

[cla-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, don't hesitate to ping @drewbanin.

CLA has not been signed by users: @AndreasTA-FF

[cla-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, don't hesitate to ping @drewbanin.

CLA has not been signed by users: @AndreasTA-FF

[cla-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, don't hesitate to ping @drewbanin.

CLA has not been signed by users: @AndreasTA-FF

[jtcohen6]

@AndreasTA-AW Will you be able to sign the CLA? The PR looks in good shape, so that's the only blocker to merging this in.

[AndreasTA-AW]

Hi!
I'm actually waiting to get a GO on that, hopefully it will be solved anytime.

[AndreasTA-AW]

@jtcohen6 Sorry for the delay, I got an OK to sign it now, so it should all be fixed.

[jtcohen6]

Thanks for the contribution @AndreasTA-AW!