Repository navigation
fix: evaluate authored numeric decisions structurally - #732
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
SQBRDECLARATION102previously authorized a compiled numeric comparison whenever the same numeric token appeared anywhere in the full authored model file. Header metadata, comments, casts, output values, and macro-expanded SQL could therefore create both false positives and false negatives.Fixed output bucket projections such as
CASE WHEN offset_seconds = 30 ... AS amount_30are structural schema definitions rather than unnamed policy thresholds.Changes
Verification
uv sync --all-extrasmake check-ciSQBRDECLARATION102inventory reduced to zero after genuine thresholds were declared as constants