Use original path to mimick resource subdirectory structure

[franloza]

Resolves #2173

Description

I'm using the original path when compiling to preserve the original folder structure.

Checklist

• I have signed the CLA
• I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the stated issue
• This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for this PR
• I have updated the CHANGELOG.md and added information about my change to the "dbt next" section.

[drewbanin]

Thanks for opening this PR @franloza!

It looks like the tests failed here -- there's going to be a bunch of changes to make in the test suite to make actual == expected for these changes. Before you go off an do all of that work, it would be good to have @beckjake take a look at your approach :)

[beckjake]

I think this idea is generally good. One problem is going to be on schema tests: every test declared in a given file is going to end up with a build_path attribute pointing to the same schema.yml path. You'll see similar issues on snapshots, and anywhere else that has a many-to-one relationship of nodes to files.

One idea is to have test calculate a similar full_path, but make schema.yml a folder and add (at least some of) the test FQN or unique ID to the end. I'm not sure that's the best way, but at least it'll be consistent.

[franloza]

@beckjake I have reproduced the error and the approach I have followed to solve the problem in 8f45ece is very similar to the one you have proposed.

If the basename of the path is equal, it means that is one-to-one relationship and we can use the original path safely. However, if the base name is not equal, it means that it is a many-to-one relationship and in that case, we need to consider the basename as a folder (like you proposed to do with schema.yml) and append the path to the original path.

Therefore, for the analysis file, the resulting full path would be target/compiled/customer_data_model/test_paths/test.sql whereas for a custom schema test would be target/compiled/customer_data_model/models/base/schema.yml/schema_test/custom_base_customers_name.sql .

What do you think about this approach? Do you think it is consistent with the original solution?

[beckjake]

@franloza Yeah, that sounds great!

[beckjake]

Thanks for the PR @franloza, this looks great! I'll kick off the tests here.

[beckjake]

I'm merging this before these tests finish - this was all passing and the only conflict was in the changelog, which I've resolved.