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

[Improvement] Introduce catalog level capabilities framework #1661

Closed
mchades opened this issue Jan 23, 2024 · 1 comment
Closed

[Improvement] Introduce catalog level capabilities framework #1661

mchades opened this issue Jan 23, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
improvement Improvements on everything

Comments

@mchades
Copy link
Contributor

mchades commented Jan 23, 2024

What would you like to be improved?

Currently, we lack catalog-level capability management, which results in the need to duplicate some validation work across different catalogs.

How should we improve?

Introduce a catalog-level capabilities framework and uniformly validate catalog capabilities at the higher level.

@mchades
Copy link
Contributor Author

mchades commented Mar 8, 2024

Here is the design doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17h1lavTbKShvFAX0FmINYLSSn5bHGilIuFw9vjIvde8/edit?usp=sharing

If anyone has any opinions or viewpoints, feel free to comment and engage in discussions on the documents and issues.

jerryshao pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 15, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

1. Introduce catalog capability framework
2. Support `column not null` capability to show how the framework works

### Why are the changes needed?

Improving code quality

Fix: #1662 

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

no

### How was this patch tested?

existing tests
@mchades mchades closed this as completed Apr 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
improvement Improvements on everything
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants