Fix: Create table statement parameter ordering when configured with backup & dist/sort

[SMeltser]

resolves #60

Description

This PR corrects the parameter ordering of the table creation statement to accommodate when a model is configured with both a BACKUP parameter as well as an accompanying DIST/SORT key.

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-redshift next" section.

[McKnight-42]

@SMeltser if you could update your local branch and repush up to test with most recent changes to main we should be able to get this approved.

[VersusFacit]

👍 To what Matt said

Since this was let through before because we didn't have a test for this case, would you mind adding a test or two for queries which include backup and various other Redshift options?

Not to send you out into deep end by yourself. Here's the class or thereabouts a test has both the backup option and a dist key/sort key should go!

We'll be happy to lend extra support in making sure this behavior gets recorded as a regression test.

[SMeltser]

Will do ASAP! Thank you for the feedback @McKnight-42 @VersusFacit

[SMeltser]

@McKnight-42 @VersusFacit Just completed the test updates. Open to any and all feedback you have regarding the setup. I incorporated a conditional flow if the backup param is expected to ensure that the ordering of parameters is valid when dist/sortkey's are supplied.

[VersusFacit]

Hey, this is great! Thanks for taking a stab at this and following up. We're so close to finishing this up.

Just two minor comments. I really like the trick of checking things by index in the over DDL string. Quality way to ensure there's a proper ordering at play.

[will-peloton]

thank you all for working on this fix. This may be a bit off topic but when can we expect 1.0.1 to be released? I'm really looking forward to using this.

[VersusFacit]

@SMeltser We had a few bugs crop up over the last week or so that are responsible for unit tests failures in your logs. Thankfully, we've already fixed them.

Merging the adapter root branch into this project will resolve them and get you green, at which point I'll (finally) approve for.

@will-peloton As soon as we get this green, I think we can merge it. As for 1.0.1 of this adapter (if that's what you mean; please correct me if I'm misreading), we're very much in a 'keeping the lights on' mode right now. That said, I'll report back to the team a desire to see that initiative pushed through.

[VersusFacit]

Nicely done!!! So glad to see this completed :)) Thanks for sticking with it 🙇‍♀️ 🚀

edit: integration tests didn't run on this test and won't even with a manual rerun. To compensate, I locally setup and tested your branch. As expected, all green!

Merging