Skip to content

Downstream dialect allowlists don't recognize OSSIE_SQL_2026 #442

Description

@jbonofre

Background

#439 added OSSIE_SQL_2026 as a dialect in the core spec, and #440 added the matching value to the Python OssieDialect enum. Documents using OSSIE_SQL_2026 now pass model validation, but several downstream components hard-code dialect allowlists that predate this dialect and don't recognize it. As a result, fields/metrics expressed only in OSSIE_SQL_2026 are silently dropped or produce misleading warnings, even though the dialect is ANSI-SQL-compatible.

Affected locations

  • converters/orionbelt/src/ossie_orionbelt/_common.py:41 — _SQL_PARSEABLE_DIALECTS tuple omits OSSIE_SQL_2026, so _select_sql_expression() drops such metrics from OBML export with a "no SQL-parseable dialect" warning.
  • converters/snowflake/src/ossie_snowflake/converter.py:372 — _extract_expression() only recognizes SNOWFLAKE/ANSI_SQL, so matching fields/metrics are skipped from Snowflake export with a misleading warning.
  • converters/databricks/src/ossie_databricks/_common.py:231 — pick_expression() only falls back through DATABRICKS/ANSI_SQL, returning None and causing the field/metric to be dropped from Databricks Metric View output.
  • converters/wisdom/src/ossie_wisdom/ossie_to_wisdom.py:148 — _infer_dataset_dialect() / _pick_expression() never check OSSIE_SQL_2026, producing a spurious MISSING_DIALECT_EXPRESSION issue even though a fallback expression is still used.
  • validation/validate.py:67 — DIALECT_MAP / SKIP_SQL_VALIDATION omit OSSIE_SQL_2026; it currently validates correctly only by accident, because dict.get()'s default happens to match the same None sentinel used for ANSI_SQL. This should be made an explicit mapping rather than relying on that coincidence.

Suggested fix

Treat OSSIE_SQL_2026 as ANSI-SQL-compatible in each of the allowlists/fallback chains above (mirroring how ANSI_SQL is handled), and add regression tests per converter covering a field/metric expressed only in OSSIE_SQL_2026.

Related

Follow-up from review of #440.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions