-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
[DC-1028] [DC-1155] Add script to remove select sites' EHR data #628
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would appreciate your feedback on some of these comments. We will need to fix the unit test before merging. The other feedback could be addressed now or in a new PR, whichever makes the most sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is at least one change needed to calculating max_results
.
c7d1699
to
2ca9c9a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, the exclude script is good. I think we covered that in the previous review. I'd appreciate talking about the logging changes and your design considerations for them.
Thanks @lrwb-aou. Let's discuss logging when I get back on Wed. There's some good feedback in here which I may be able to address by then. |
@lrwb-aou I wanted to get as much done on this as I can since I will be out for a few days. I changed the PR title because the build check was failing. I pushed commits I thought were not too controversial and closed the associated conversations; please unresolve if needed. I plan to cover the remaining items when I get back. |
@mark-velez @lrwb-aou I merged the changes to fix the intermittent unit test failure for |
Hey @lrwb-aou please let me know if there's anything left to address before I rebase and remove obsolete code. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've got some thoughts. Let me know what you think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Very few comments. The three comments are about conventions.
str(datetime.date): 'DATE', | ||
str(datetime.datetime): 'TIMESTAMP' | ||
} | ||
dict_types = Union[Dict, OrderedDict] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't go through creating a NamedTuple because I like this setup you've got here. So I created this very small patch file. What do you think? I know we could let someone use strings, but if these helper functions were used by an integration test, a string object iterable would blow this stuff up. Because I find it unlikely that we'll have single character column names in an integration test. On that subject, do you intend for these functions to be used by integration and unit tests alike?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The patch would permit key_order
to be List[tuple]
or List[List]
whereas it is most likely to be passed as a List[str]
(example) as it should represent the keys within each row (type=dict) in the order that the result schema. A value belonging to any immutable (hashable?) type is permitted to be used as a key in a dictionary.
I thought maybe the patch had a typo and non_string_iterable_types
should be the container type (?), but my IDE is complaining this is invalid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is a lot of debate about how to use Iterable without using a string. I don't think there's been a good answer for how to proceed forward. I'm dropping this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is good. Just need to remove the dead code.
* MagicMock with spec is sufficient
are retrieved * Add `bq_test_helpers` shared helper functions for BigQuery-related tests
* Unpatch generate_paths
* Set configuration with logging.config.dictConfig * Remove get_logger() * Add configure() which operates similar to logging.basicConfig()
* Remove unused warnings import
af23466
to
d9b10d4
Compare
No description provided.