-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 124
feat(discovery): enrich get_lineage with description; remove get_model_parents/children #817
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
| kind: Enhancement or New Feature | ||
| body: Remove get_model_parents and get_model_children tools; get_lineage(depth=1) provides the same information and now also returns a description field per node | ||
| time: 2026-06-22T10:30:11.723713-07:00 |
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -7,27 +7,33 @@ A list of all nodes in the connected subgraph, where each node contains: | |
| - `uniqueId`: The resource's unique identifier | ||
| - `name`: The resource name | ||
| - `resourceType`: The type of resource (Model, Source, etc.) | ||
| - `description`: A description of the resource | ||
| - `parentIds`: List of unique IDs that this resource directly depends on | ||
|
|
||
| **Getting immediate parents or children:** use `depth=1`. This returns the target node plus its direct upstream dependencies and direct downstream dependents. | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Agree with the above! |
||
|
|
||
| **Example Response:** | ||
| ```json | ||
| [ | ||
| { | ||
| "uniqueId": "source.raw.users", | ||
| "name": "users", | ||
| "resourceType": "Source", | ||
| "description": "Raw user events from the application", | ||
| "parentIds": [] | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "uniqueId": "model.stg_customers", | ||
| "name": "stg_customers", | ||
| "resourceType": "Model", | ||
| "description": "Staged customer records", | ||
| "parentIds": ["source.raw.users"] | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "uniqueId": "model.customers", | ||
| "name": "customers", | ||
| "resourceType": "Model", | ||
| "description": "Customer dimension model", | ||
| "parentIds": ["model.stg_customers"] | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
@@ -38,12 +44,12 @@ A list of all nodes in the connected subgraph, where each node contains: | |
| # Get complete lineage (all connected nodes, all types, default depth of 5) | ||
| get_lineage(unique_id="model.analytics.customers") | ||
|
|
||
| # Get only immediate parents and children (replaces get_model_parents / get_model_children) | ||
| get_lineage(unique_id="model.analytics.customers", depth=1) | ||
|
Comment on lines
+47
to
+48
|
||
|
|
||
| # Get lineage filtered to only models and sources | ||
| get_lineage(unique_id="model.analytics.customers", types=["Model", "Source"]) | ||
|
|
||
| # Get only immediate neighbors (depth=1) | ||
| get_lineage(unique_id="model.analytics.customers", depth=1) | ||
|
|
||
| # Get deeper lineage for comprehensive analysis | ||
| get_lineage(unique_id="model.analytics.customers", depth=10) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
This file was deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel this would be considered a breaking change? One of the examples actually (if you Ctrl + F for the deleted tools), actually refers to both
get_model_parentsandget_model_childreninexamples/ag2_agent/main_multiagent.pywhich is a solid case of potentially existing references to these tools that would breakcc @b-per thoughts here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. Same as the other PR. This should be a breaking change. We need an approach to