feature/google-ads-api-default

[fivetran-joemarkiewicz]

Are you a current Fivetran customer?

Fivetran created PR

What change(s) does this PR introduce?

The api_source variable is now defaulted to google_ads as opposed to adwords. The Adwords API has since been depricated by Google and is now no longer the standard API for the Google Ads connector. Please ensure you are using a Google Ads API version of the Fivetran connector before upgrading this package.

• Please note, the adwords version of this package will be fully removed from the package in August of 2022 (when the V2 updates roll out).

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.)

The default nature of the api_source has changed. As such, we should treat this as a breaking change.

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, Issue/Feature From The Ad Reporting Package #51
• 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-sheringuyen]

Hey @fivetran-joemarkiewicz! PR looks good and I just left a couple of comments in the code itself - just ran it and everything works as expected in dbt run. There was one warning during dbt test that I've added below. Is the below expected?

20:50:36  1 of 1 START test dbt_expectations_expect_column_values_to_not_match_regex_list_stg_google_ads__ad_history_source_final_urls__any___ [RUN]
20:50:37  1 of 1 WARN 1 dbt_expectations_expect_column_values_to_not_match_regex_list_stg_google_ads__ad_history_source_final_urls__any___ [WARN 1 in 1.45s]
20:50:37  
20:50:37  Finished running 1 test in 3.84s.
20:50:37  
20:50:37  Completed with 1 warning:
20:50:37  
20:50:37  Warning in test dbt_expectations_expect_column_values_to_not_match_regex_list_stg_google_ads__ad_history_source_final_urls__any___ (models/google_ads_connector/stg_google_ads.yml)
20:50:37    Got 1 result, configured to warn if != 0
20:50:38  
20:50:38    compiled SQL at target/compiled/google_ads_source/models/google_ads_connector/stg_google_ads.yml/dbt_expectations_expect_column_f02cb56d69a9df1e600b3958899ceaa5.sql
20:50:38  
20:50:38  Done. PASS=0 WARN=1 ERROR=0 SKIP=0 TOTAL=1

I also had a question about this part of the models in this package -- is it right to assume the below configs will be removed after full deprecation of adwords capability?
{{ config(enabled=var('api_source') == 'google_ads') }}

[fivetran-joemarkiewicz]

@fivetran-sheringuyen thanks for the review! I just pushed changes that address your inline comments. Additionally, to address your additional comments:

is it right to assume the below configs will be removed after full deprecation of adwords capability?
{{ config(enabled=var('api_source') == 'google_ads') }}

• Yes, this will be removed in the next update once we remove the adwords components.

There was one warning during dbt test that I've added below. Is the below expected?

• Yes this is expected. This is a result of the final_urls field possibly containing multiple urls. In a similar fashion where we select the latest historical record for some history models, in this case we select only one url to include in the final model. This warning is by design to raise awareness to users that a url is being intentionally cut off. See here for the specific test that is providing the warning.

[fivetran-sheringuyen]

@fivetran-joemarkiewicz Just took a peep, PR looks good! Thank you for the changes, I'm giving this a thumbs up!

Re: your warning comment, what are your thoughts on including a comment in the yml in the test section to briefly explain the expected warning?

[fivetran-joemarkiewicz]

@fivetran-joemarkiewicz Just took a peep, PR looks good! Thank you for the changes, I'm giving this a thumbs up!

Re: your warning comment, what are your thoughts on including a comment in the yml in the test section to briefly explain the expected warning?

Good call out. I actually thought I already had that in place, looks like I didn't. Will add now!