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
In line exemption for custom rules #111
Comments
Hi @nevengrgic 👋 I vaguely recall intending to make rule ID's of the form [A-Z][0-9]+ (i.e. one letter and a number) to be reserved for future LAMS use, so there may be an issue caused by that... but I will look into this and see what I find. Edit: I guess to be clearer: My expectation of the intended functionality is that the rule exemption should prevent an error from being raised for that file for this custom rule |
Hi @fabio-looker! Thanks for the quick response. You are correct about the expected functionality. I also tried changing the name based on your first comment, but that didn't appear to change anything. Appreciate your help! |
I realized that this is probably the same bug as issue #123 The fix is currently available in the v3 beta: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@looker/look-at-me-sideways/v/3.0.0-beta.0 Release notes: https://github.com/looker-open-source/look-at-me-sideways/blob/fabble/v3-extends-refinements/docs/release-notes/v3.md If you do not want to upgrade to v3, let me know and I can also patch this into v2 |
Hello! Although this was fixed in 3.0.0-beta.0 , that beta release had several issues. Many of those issues are fixed in the next beta pre-release 3.0.0-beta.1. I'll keep this issue open until v3 is out of beta. Thank you for your feedback thus far! |
v3 is now generally available. If you continue to experience any issues, please let me know. Thank you for reporting this and for your continued feedback! |
I wrote the following rule to check for explores that are defined in view files, which we do not want to allow on our instance. When I try to do an exemption within one view file, the in line exemption is not recognized. I saw a similar issue with a custom rule (#50) was resolved, but wanted to check if different custom rule configurations could still raise issues for in line exemption. Thanks!
In line exemption
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: