Feature/duck db

[ilias1111]

Description

Add support for DuckDB

What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)

• 🍕 Feature
• 🐛 Bug Fix
• 📝 Documentation Update
• 🎨 Style
• 🧑‍💻 Code Refactor
• 🔥 Performance Improvements
• ✅ Test
• 🤖 Build
• 🔁 CI
• 📦 Chore (Release)
• ⏩ Revert

Related Tickets & Documents

Checklist

• 💣 Is your change a breaking change?
• 📖 I have updated the CHANGELOG.md

Added tests?

• 👍 yes
• 🙅 no, because they aren't needed
• 🙋 no, because I need help

Added to documentation?

• 📓 internal package docs (ymls, macros, readme, if applicable)
• 📕 I have raised a Snowplow documentation PR if applicable (Link here if required)
• 🙅 no documentation needed

[optional] Are there any post-deployment tasks we need to perform?

[optional] What gif best describes this PR or how it makes you feel?

[spinx]

Hi @ilias1111,

I'm getting a failed test:

Failure in test dbt_utils_expression_is_true_test_get_run_limits_expected_upper_limit_actual_upper_limit (models/incremental_hooks/incremental_hooks.yml)

I'm not sure if it's just my setup. Is it passing on your end ?

[ilias1111]

Hi @ilias1111,

I'm getting a failed test:

Failure in test dbt_utils_expression_is_true_test_get_run_limits_expected_upper_limit_actual_upper_limit (models/incremental_hooks/incremental_hooks.yml)

I'm not sure if it's just my setup. Is it passing on your end ?

@spinx It should be passing, given the tests passed in the CI, in which platform are you getting the error, in Duck?

[spinx]

Hi @ilias1111,
I'm getting a failed test:

Failure in test dbt_utils_expression_is_true_test_get_run_limits_expected_upper_limit_actual_upper_limit (models/incremental_hooks/incremental_hooks.yml)

I'm not sure if it's just my setup. Is it passing on your end ?

@spinx It should be passing, given the tests passed in the CI, in which platform are you getting the error, in Duck?

Yes, in DuckDB. I'll consider this done from my end then! Thanks for confirming.

[agnessnowplow]

Hi @spinx , I had a look as well and it failed for me locally as well on the same test. It seems we are dealing with a similar issue we faced on spark where the timezone handling was not accurate when using the standard date_add function so I had to resort to using a similar, epoch based resolution to work around this. The tests pass for me now locally, the automated pr_tests fail for an unrelated reason we are aware of and will be fixed shortly. Let me know if this fixes it on your end (or if you find a better workaround).