[MAINTENANCE] Update changelog (in both, ".md" and ".rtd" formats) #3189
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
✔️ Deploy Preview for knoxpod ready! 🔨 Explore the source changes: c691c45 🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/knoxpod/deploys/610d7a695a69ca00077727b1 😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-3189--knoxpod.netlify.app |
HOWDY! This is your friendly 🤖 CHANGELOG bot 🤖Please don't forget to add a clear and succinct description of your change under the Develop header in ✨ Thank you! ✨ |
alexsherstinsky
requested review from
jcampbell,
fjork3,
NathanFarmer,
petermoyer,
spencerhardwick and
cdkini
fjork3
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2021
alexsherstinsky
deleted the
maintenance/GREAT-56/GREAT-90/alexsherstinsky/changelog_for_fix_of_incorrect_usage_of_all_in_validation_test_result_comparison-2021_08_06-42
branch
Shinnnyshinshin
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 9, 2021
* develop: [FEATURE] Update ExpectCompoundColumnsToBeUnique for V3 API (#3161) [DOCS] Add `conda` as installation option in README (#3196) [BUGFIX] Restore support for V2 API style custom expectation rendering (#3179) [BUGFIX] Fixes an error with expect_column_values_to_be_dateutil_parseable (#3190) [FEATURE] Set foundation for Azure-related DataConnectors (#3188) Update changelog. (#3189) Update validate_your_data.md (#3185) [BUGFIX] Fix incorrect usage of "all()" in the comparison of validation results when executing an Expectation (#3178) [BUGFIX] Remove fixture parameterization for Cloud DBs (Snowflake and BigQuery) (#3182) [DOCS] Update BigQuery docs to clarify the use of temp tables (#3184) [MAINTENANCE] Add `credentials` YAML key support for `DataConnectors` (#3173) release-prep-2021-08-05 (#3181) [DOCS] Improve Core Concepts - Expectation Concepts (#2831) Implement the "compound_columns_unique" metric for PandasExecutionEngine (with a unit test). (#3159) [FEATURE] Support row_condition and ignore_row_if Directives Combined for PandasExecutionEngine (#3150) Update test_script_runner.py (#3177) [DOCS] Capitalize python to Python in docs (#3176) [FEATURE] Update ExpectMulticolumnSumToEqual for V3 API (#3136)
mielvds
pushed a commit
to mielvds/great_expectations
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please annotate your PR title to describe what the PR does, then give a brief bulleted description of your PR below. PR titles should begin with [BUGFIX], [FEATURE], [DOCS], or [MAINTENANCE]. If a new feature introduces breaking changes for the Great Expectations API or configuration files, please also add [BREAKING]. You can read about the tags in our contributor checklist.
Changes proposed in this pull request:
After submitting your PR, CI checks will run and @tiny-tim-bot will check for your CLA signature.
For a PR with nontrivial changes, we review with both design-centric and code-centric lenses.
In a design review, we aim to ensure that the PR is consistent with our relationship to the open source community, with our software architecture and abstractions, and with our users' needs and expectations. That review often starts well before a PR, for example in github issues or slack, so please link to relevant conversations in notes below to help reviewers understand and approve your PR more quickly (e.g.
closes #123).Previous Design Review notes:
Definition of Done
Please delete options that are not relevant.
Thank you for submitting!