Better node identification

Describe the feature

As proven by the necessity to add a hash to a test node’s unique_id, the current model of node identification could use some tweaking.

This was discussed in previous ticket comments: https://github.com/fishtown-analytics/dbt/pull/3335#discussion_r631213752 https://github.com/fishtown-analytics/dbt/pull/3335#discussion_r629693671

Describe alternatives you’ve considered

This isn’t well fleshed out yet, but the ideas that come immediately to mind are:

• re-work the existing human readable unique_id so the naming scheme is actually unique
• replace the unique_id with a full hash and include enough tooling that we don’t have to manage hashes by hand in tests, etc.

Who will this benefit?

This will make development simpler and eliminate the need for post-parsing checks like this.

Are you interested in contributing this feature?

[jtcohen6]

@nathaniel-may Thank you again for this excellent comment. While thinking about this on the train, I realized that the code to fix this one is super straightforward and self-contained, so I gave it a go in https://github.com/dbt-labs/dbt-core/pull/4898

[iknox-fa]

@jtcohen6 I see where you’re coming from, but it’s actually more about the unique_id than the name. For that reason I’m thinking we should keep all nodes in-play here.

Right now we have three+ ways to ID a node: unique_id unique_id + hash, and name. I’d love it if we could get that down to one human readable and unique identifier, but I rather doubt it will stay human readable* as we add more to the node content.

If that is the case, uniform logic to handle unique_ids as a hash and name as a human readable label seems like a likely solution and would include all nodes.

*unless you want a Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft