Hello dbt community! I’m using this forum to introduce a new framework for testing data transformations: dtspec. One topic that has come up in several dbt slack conversations and other discourse posts is how difficult it can be to write tests that show how the output of a data transformation may behave given some variation with its inputs. dtspec is designed to simplify the process of building test data and asserting how it should be transformed.
dtspec is a very new project. We’ve implemented it at my company, InsideTrack, to test many of our dbt models. I’m reaching out to the dbt community to gather feedback on whether this could be a useful
tool for other data shops.
I’ve set up a basic proof-of-concept dbt jaffle_shop project that demonstrates how dtspec can be used in dbt projects. The interested reader is encouraged to review the spec file for that project, and even take it for a test drive locally. Try tweaking some of the models or expectations to see what happens when the expectations are not actually met by the transformations.
One of the more amazing things that happened while I was writing the spec for the
jaffle_shop project was that I was wrong (gasp!) about how I thought a certain model behaved. When I wrote the test case, I wrote it the way I thought the transformation worked, and dtspec alerted me that the expectation was not being met. I was then able to dig into the model SQL more to figure out where my assumptions were wrong. I then fixed the test case and moved on. This is the real power of dtspec! Data transformations can get very complex. Different developers, both new and seasoned, are going to have different understandings about how the models function. If, based on our necessarily limited understanding, we modify the SQL in a way that breaks some known edge case, dtspec will alert us.
With dtspec, a user writes a spec.yaml file describing the expected behavior of the data transformations they wish to test. dtspec uses this spec file to generate data that is then loaded into an empty test data warehouse. dbt (or really any other data transformation system) is then run in that test warehouse. The outputs of the transformations (e.g., dbt models) are then extracted out of the data warehouse. dtspec then compares the actual results with the expected results defined in the spec file. Any discrepancies are reported to the user.
The spec file contains a few key components, which are detailed below and include some examples from the jaffle_shop POC.
A single dbt run in a modern data warehouse can be time consuming, even if the amount of data being transformed is small. dtspec is designed to minimize the number times that dbt needs to be run in order to be tested (in most situations, dbt would only need to be run once). dtspec accomplishes this by collecting all of the data described in the cases and stacks them on top of each other. Identifiers are used to declare which columns uniquely identify records as belonging to a particular test case. See the dtspec README for more details on the topic. In a lot of situations, we can get away with a generic identifier for the
identifiers: - identifier: generic attributes: - field: id generator: unique_integer
The sources in a spec file describe the data transformation inputs. These map directly to dbt sources. The user can specify which columns can be used to uniquely identify records within a case by defining an
sources: - source: raw_customers identifier_map: - column: id identifier: name: generic attribute: id - source: raw_orders identifier_map: - column: id identifier: name: generic attribute: id - column: user_id identifier: name: generic attribute: id
These are the outputs of the data transformations. In dbt, these are known as models:
targets: - target: dim_customers identifier_map: - column: customer_id identifier: name: generic attribute: id
Factories describe how to generate data for the sources to be used as inputs for data transformations. A single factory can be, and usually is, composed of multiple sources that are in some way related to each other (e.g., foreign key relationships). Factories can be combined with other factories and tweaked for specific test cases, thereby providing a flexible mechanism for describing different data scenarios.
factories: - factory: CustomerWithOrderAndPayment data: - source: raw_customers table: | | id | first_name | | - | - | | cust1 | Kelly | - source: raw_orders table: | | id | user_id | | - | - | | order1 | cust1 | - source: raw_payments table: | | id | order_id | | - | - | | payment1 | order1 |
scenarios and cases
Scenarios and cases are the heart of dtspec. Scenarios are collections of cases that share a common base factory and typically describe a single data target/model. Cases describe the expected output of a transformation, given some inputs (inherited from the scenario, and often tweaked a bit).
scenarios: - scenario: Building dim_customers factory: parents: # This factory is used by default in all of the cases that belong to this scenario. - CustomerWithOrderAndPayment cases: - case: populating number of orders factory: data: - source: raw_orders table: | | id | user_id | | - | - | | order1 | cust1 | | order2 | cust1 | | order3 | cust1 | expected: data: - target: dim_customers table: | | customer_id | number_of_orders | | - | - | | cust1 | 3 |
The output of a run of dtspec (with a test case failure) looks something like this
Asserting Building dim_customers: target has data PASSED Asserting Building dim_customers: populating number of orders FAILED DataFrame.iloc[:, 1] are different DataFrame.iloc[:, 1] values are different (100.0 %) [left]:  [right]:  Actual: customer_id number_of_orders 0 cust1 2 Expected: customer_id number_of_orders 0 cust1 3 Asserting Building dim_customers: populating most recent order date PASSED Asserting Building dim_customers: populating customer lifetime value PASSED Asserting Building dim_customers: unknown payment methods are not ignored when populating customer lifetime value PASSED Asserting Building fct_orders: target has data PASSED Asserting Building fct_orders: populating the right payment column PASSED Asserting Building fct_orders: unknown payment methods still show up in totals, but nowhere else PASSED Asserting Building fct_orders: multiple payments for the same order PASSED
Comparison with other kinds of dbt tests
dtspec is not meant to replace the schema or data tests that are currently baked in to dbt. dtspec is meant to supplement these tests and enhance overall test coverage. The dbt schema and data tests are tremendously valuable for ensuring the quality of production data. However, they can be difficult to use to test hypothetical data situations or complex, record specific, transformation logic. dtspec is mean to fill that gap.
How we’re using dbt and dtspec at InsideTrack
At InsideTrack, we’re using dtspec to run over 150 tests against 50 models in a Redshift data warehouse.
For organizational purposes, we’ve split up our
spec.yml file into multiple files and then process them with Jinja to knit them back together into a single spec file (and thus we get all the other great things that come along with Jinja). Running all of the tests takes about 5 minutes, and we’ve built our spec parser a way to run just specific models and tests to speed up develoment iterations.
We’ve also got scripts to copy our production source data schemas into a small Redshift test cluster. That test cluster is used by our CI system to run dtspec tests after every commit and prior to every deploy.
We’re also toying with the idea of migrating our warehouse from Redshift to Snowflake. In principle, we should be able to perform that migration without modifying any of the dtspec files. We’ll certainly have to adjust some of the model SQL to accomplish this migration, but once we can get all of our dtspec tests passing, we’ll have excellent confidence that the migration will be successful.
Where to learn more
Comment on this post, or reach out to me on dbt slack if you have any questions!