You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The documentation says that to define an upstream dependency for a dbt model where the upstream dependency that in Dagster outside of dbt, one should reference it in the sources.yml file:
However, if that upstream asset is defined as an explicit external asset in another code location with any description or metadata like this:
AssetSpec(
key=["upstream"],
description="This description disappears from the UI.",
)
The explicitly defined external asset is "overwritten" in the UI by an asset created implicitly by the dbt project. Any information added to the explicit external asset is unavailable, and the asset only exists in the dbt project's code location instead.
This behavior occurs outside of dbt projects as well - the same problem exists when adding deps to a Dagster asset in another code location as well. The auto-stubbed asset takes precedence over the explicit asset.
What did you expect to happen?
Expected behavior is for the dbt asset to correctly recognize and link to the correct asset in the other code location, instead of creating a new one and ignoring the explicit one.
How to reproduce?
Define one external asset in code location A, then define a downstream asset in code location B that references the external asset in path form as a dependency like deps=[["upstream"]].
Deployment type
Other Docker-based deployment
Deployment details
GRPC servers deployed on ECS.
Additional information
Problem still exists even after shutting down code location B and clearing any materializations with the UI or graphql wipeAssets mutation. As long as code location B remains shut down, the explicit external asset defined in code location A shows the correct information, but when turning code location B back on, the implicit asset takes precedence again.
When running locally with dagster dev this problem does not exist.
Message from the maintainers
Impacted by this issue? Give it a 👍! We factor engagement into prioritization.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dagster version
1.7.4
What's the issue?
The documentation says that to define an upstream dependency for a dbt model where the upstream dependency that in Dagster outside of dbt, one should reference it in the sources.yml file:
However, if that upstream asset is defined as an explicit external asset in another code location with any description or metadata like this:
The explicitly defined external asset is "overwritten" in the UI by an asset created implicitly by the dbt project. Any information added to the explicit external asset is unavailable, and the asset only exists in the dbt project's code location instead.
This behavior occurs outside of dbt projects as well - the same problem exists when adding
deps
to a Dagster asset in another code location as well. The auto-stubbed asset takes precedence over the explicit asset.What did you expect to happen?
Expected behavior is for the dbt asset to correctly recognize and link to the correct asset in the other code location, instead of creating a new one and ignoring the explicit one.
How to reproduce?
Define one external asset in code location A, then define a downstream asset in code location B that references the external asset in path form as a dependency like
deps=[["upstream"]]
.Deployment type
Other Docker-based deployment
Deployment details
GRPC servers deployed on ECS.
Additional information
Problem still exists even after shutting down code location B and clearing any materializations with the UI or graphql
wipeAssets
mutation. As long as code location B remains shut down, the explicit external asset defined in code location A shows the correct information, but when turning code location B back on, the implicit asset takes precedence again.When running locally with
dagster dev
this problem does not exist.Message from the maintainers
Impacted by this issue? Give it a 👍! We factor engagement into prioritization.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: