Bugfix/match type report adjustments

[fivetran-joemarkiewicz]

Are you a current Fivetran customer?

Fivetran created PR

What change(s) does this PR introduce?

🪳 Bugfix 🪳

This PR includes the following bug fixes:

• In each end model, *_id fields are explicitly selected from the left side of the join, reports, rather than from entity (i.e. keywords) history tables. This is necessary as Microsoft hard-deletes records from history tables, and therefore, daily report fields may have *_id values that do not exist in history tables. (#63).
• Includes the match_type field in the uniqueness test on the microsoft_ads__search_report model (#64).

Contributors:

• @clay-walker - Thank you for opening and providing information on issues #63 and #64! 🎉

Did you update the CHANGELOG?

• Yes

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes (please provide breaking change details below.)
• No (please provide an explanation as to how the change is non-breaking below.)

Did you update the dbt_project.yml files with the version upgrade (please leverage standard semantic versioning)? (In both your main project and integration_tests)

• Yes

Is this PR in response to a previously created Bug or Feature Request

• Yes, see the issue reference in the description
• No

How did you test the PR changes?

• CircleCi
• Local (please provide additional testing details below)

Select which warehouse(s) were used to test the PR

• BigQuery
• Redshift
• Snowflake
• Postgres
• Databricks
• Other (provide details below)

Provide an emoji that best describes your current mood

🧉

Feedback

We are so excited you decided to contribute to the Fivetran community dbt package! We continue to work to improve the packages and would greatly appreciate your feedback on our existing dbt packages or what you'd like to see next.

[fivetran-jamie]

LGTM! one q though - do we want to note that records with non-null _id fields and null _name fields reflect entities hard-deleted by microsoft? i suppose it's in the changelog, but maybe we wanna add it as well to the readme or decision log or something?

[fivetran-joemarkiewicz]

LGTM! one q though - do we want to note that records with non-null _id fields and null _name fields reflect entities hard-deleted by microsoft? i suppose it's in the changelog, but maybe we wanna add it as well to the readme or decision log or something?

That's a great point. I will add a similar note from the CHANGELOG into the DECISIONLOG so it is not lost to time.

[fivetran-jamie]

ah .DS_Store snuck in there @fivetran-joemarkiewicz

[fivetran-joemarkiewicz]

ah .DS_Store snuck in there @fivetran-joemarkiewicz

Ahhh good eye, just removed it.