-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
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
Support Markdown in metadig report view #2394
Comments
@jeanetteclark Fully agree that markdown support in check results would be super useful. I briefly looked into how we handle this in the current system. Basically, there is a The result output then gets rendered in the template by iterating over the results, and creating either an To add markdown support should be a matter of inserting a new block for markdown type outputs -- basically an I hope @robyngit can help guide us on what the approach would be to integrating the MarkdownView into the quality reports. |
data-quality-result-example.txt Here's an example run with some markdown |
To make it easier to insert markdown view Issue #2394
@robyngit let me know if this looks ok |
e.g. Identify "success" or "SUCCESS" in MDQ view Issue #2394
Hey @robyngit - turns out the schema already supports multiple output fields so I can just add an attribute to it. How would an output like this fit into the MVP? |
@jeanetteclark It works with the current PR no problem! 💃🏻 For the next release, maybe we could think about how to show or link to these per-file results from the main dataset landing page. |
Describe the feature you'd like
Rendering Markdown using showdown.js on metadig reports would give us a lot of flexibility to create much better looking reports.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We would like to show some informational checks with tables showing summaries of files. For example
would look like:
(except without the colors maybe)
Right now the best we have is:
which is not so readable.
I'd argue that this functionality is basically a requirement for the data quality suite to proceed. @mbjones can also weigh in on priority
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: