Skip to content
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

Add T-SQL verification queries #876

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bishwajit-db
Copy link
Contributor

@bishwajit-db bishwajit-db commented Sep 2, 2024

Add T-SQL verification queries. Resolves #636

@bishwajit-db bishwajit-db requested a review from a team as a code owner September 2, 2024 11:08
@bishwajit-db bishwajit-db changed the title Add T-SQL validation queries Add T-SQL verification queries Sep 2, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 2, 2024

Coverage tests results

3 357 tests  +2 893     427 ✅ ±    0   4s ⏱️ ±0s
    6 suites ±    0   2 930 💤 +2 893 
    6 files   ±    0       0 ❌ ±    0 

Results for commit dfcc5e7. ± Comparison against base commit 9ffc6a0.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link
Contributor

@sundarshankar89 sundarshankar89 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would prefer to have meaningful filenames

@nfx nfx assigned vijaypavann-db and unassigned vijaypavann-db Sep 11, 2024
@bishwajit-db
Copy link
Contributor Author

I would prefer to have meaningful filenames

Yes, that would be better. Right now, it just uses the example file name. However, it will make the process more complex and require another LLM inference step to generate the filenames based on the content. Can we skip it unless absolutely required?

@sundarshankar89 sundarshankar89 requested a review from a team as a code owner November 25, 2024 15:37
@jimidle
Copy link
Contributor

jimidle commented Nov 27, 2024

I would prefer to have meaningful filenames

Yes, that would be better. Right now, it just uses the example file name. However, it will make the process more complex and require another LLM inference step to generate the filenames based on the content. Can we skip it unless absolutely required?

I think it is OK to leave this - it is already a massive PR because of the huge number of examples.

Copy link
Contributor

@jimidle jimidle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's impossible to check all examples in a review but that is just how it has to be unfortunately.

@gueniai gueniai mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2024
2 tasks
@gueniai
Copy link

gueniai commented Nov 27, 2024

@bishwajit-db I've made a note on the issue so that we have a placeholder to add the Databricks version of all of these, so that we can go ahead and merge this and then work on the other part on a separate PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Verification examples for TSQL
6 participants