Feature/order to orders

[fivetran-catfritz]

PR Overview

This PR will address the following Issue/Feature:

• [Feature] Accommodate change from ORDER to ORDERS #11

This PR will result in the following new package version:

• I chose v0.2.0 since we're potentially changing schema behavior, but on 2nd thought, it would only apply to new connectors. Open to opinions here.

Please provide the finalized CHANGELOG entry which details the relevant changes included in this PR:

PR Checklist

Basic Validation

Please acknowledge that you have successfully performed the following commands locally:

• dbt run –full-refresh && dbt test
• dbt run (if incremental models are present) && dbt test

Before marking this PR as "ready for review" the following have been applied:

• The appropriate issue has been linked, tagged, and properly assigned
• All necessary documentation and version upgrades have been applied
• docs were regenerated (unless this PR does not include any code or yml updates)
  • will regen after approval
• BuildKite integration tests are passing
• Detailed validation steps have been provided below

Detailed Validation

Please share any and all of your validation steps:

Test 1

• Seeded both tables ORDERS and ORDER

  • 

• Ran updates with no variable set and checked that it correctly compiled to select ORDERS in this case.

  • 

Test 2

• Seeded both tables ORDERS and ORDER

• Set var recharge__using_orders: false and checked that it correctly compiled to select ORDER in this case.

  • 

Test 3

• Seeded only table ORDER

  • 

• Ran updates with no variable set and checked that it correctly compiled to select ORDER in this case.

  • 

If you had to summarize this PR in an emoji, which would it be?

🍔

[fivetran-joemarkiewicz]

@fivetran-catfritz this looks great! I just have a few small suggestions. Mainly I want to get your thoughts around if we should still test in our integration_test when the connector uses the order naming convention.

Other than that, this looks great! Let me know once you take a look and I can re-review.

[fivetran-catfritz]

Thanks @fivetran-joemarkiewicz for the review! I have updated based on your comments. I tried a few different ways for getting the source 'order' to cooperate with the integrations test, but I had to go back to the way I had originally set it up. The issue is that the source has quoting set to true instead of there being issues with the column names like we discussed earlier.

Let me know if this looks good to go now!

[fivetran-joemarkiewicz]

LGTM after docs are regenerated!

[fivetran-jamie]

just one comment on the src.yml! otherwise approved

[fivetran-jamie]

should we disable this source based on recharge__using_orders?

[fivetran-jamie]

potentially also using the recharge_does_table_exist macro if possible

[fivetran-catfritz]

@fivetran-jamie I hand't considered that, so I'm flexible either way! Could you explain the benefits?

[fivetran-jamie]

Great question! Not much since we don't have any freshness tests in this package haha

Only benefit I can think of is getting rid of a floating orders source entity in the DAG for people who don't have it yet. Not super high priority, especially given that there's not an easy way to get rid of a floating order source in the DAG for people with orders.

Honestly let's leave it as is. I feel like it's more beneficial to potentially call people's attention to the upcoming ORDERS transition