fix: enforce 255-character identifier length limit for Databricks relations by psaikaushik · Pull Request #1391 · databricks/dbt-databricks

psaikaushik · 2026-04-12T22:59:18Z

Summary

Enforces the 255-character identifier length limit for Databricks relations at relation creation time, preventing a cryptic runtime DatabricksExecutionError when store_failures generates overly-long table names.

Closes #1309

Problem

When store_failures: true is enabled, dbt generates table names by concatenating the test name, model name, and arguments. For deep schema tests with verbose names, this can exceed Databricks' 255-character limit for table names, causing:

[RequestId=...] Invalid input: RPC CreateStagingTable Field
managedcatalog.StagingTableInfo.name: name "accepted_map_keys_stg_product_search_create_sizes__relax__..." too long.
Maximum length is 255 characters.

This error is unhelpful — it doesn't explain what the 255-character limit is, which test/model caused it, or how to fix it.

Fix

Added relation_max_name_length() and __post_init__ validation to DatabricksRelation, following the exact same pattern used by the Postgres adapter:

MAX_CHARACTERS_IN_IDENTIFIER = 255

def relation_max_name_length(self):
    return MAX_CHARACTERS_IN_IDENTIFIER

def __post_init__(self):
    if (
        self.identifier is not None
        and self.type is not None
        and len(self.identifier) > self.relation_max_name_length()
    ):
        raise DbtRuntimeError(
            f"Relation name '{self.identifier}' "
            f"is longer than {self.relation_max_name_length()} characters. ..."
        )

Before:

[RequestId=...] Invalid input: RPC CreateStagingTable ... name "accepted_map_keys_stg_..." too long.

After:

Relation name 'accepted_map_keys_stg_product_search_create_sizes__...'
is longer than 255 characters. Databricks has a maximum identifier
length of 255 characters. If this is a store_failures table, consider
using a shorter test name or setting a custom alias.

Checklist

Follows the same pattern as the Postgres adapter
Catches the error at relation creation time, not at SQL execution
Error message includes actionable guidance

sd-db · 2026-04-21T08:17:48Z

HI @psaikaushik can you select Allow edits from maintainers or do a rebase from main. The tests are failing because the branch is in an inconsistent state w.r.t CI and can 't review without it.

sd-db

In addition to the issues raised, let us also add an entry in CHANGELOG.md on the fix. Thanks again for the PR.

psaikaushik · 2026-04-21T21:55:52Z

HI @psaikaushik can you select Allow edits from maintainers or do a rebase from main. The tests are failing because the branch is in an inconsistent state w.r.t CI and can 't review without it.

Just allowed edit for maintainers and also rebased on the main. Thanks @sd-db

…ations Add relation_max_name_length() returning 255 and a __post_init__ validation to DatabricksRelation, following the same pattern used by the Postgres adapter. This catches overly-long table names (commonly generated by store_failures for tests with verbose names) at relation creation time with a clear error message instead of a cryptic runtime DatabricksExecutionError from the SQL engine. Closes databricks#1309

psaikaushik · 2026-04-21T21:57:53Z

@sd-db : Please take a look at the PR now. Addressed all the comments. Thanks!

…ength validation (databricks#1309) Address review feedback: - Remove verbose comment block from MAX_CHARACTERS_IN_IDENTIFIER constant - Remove redundant inline comments from __post_init__ (implied by the code) - Simplify the error message (no repetition of the limit value) - Add TestIdentifierLengthValidation unit tests covering valid length, too-long raises DbtRuntimeError, no-type skips check, None identifier - Add CHANGELOG entry under 1.11.7 https://claude.ai/code/session_017ZAXMwLSnqz4FqvTt5H7D1

- Add @classmethod decorator and -> int return type to relation_max_name_length() - Broaden error message to not mention store_failures specifically; the validator fires on any oversized identifier (models, seeds, snapshots, etc.) - Remove test_relation_max_name_length test (failing and not required per review) - Move CHANGELOG entry from 1.11.7 to new 1.11.8 section https://claude.ai/code/session_017ZAXMwLSnqz4FqvTt5H7D1

psaikaushik · 2026-04-22T17:00:06Z

@sd-db : Addressed all the comments. Please take a look. thanks!

Error message called relation_max_name_length() three times and stated the limit redundantly. Align with reviewer's exact suggested wording: "Databricks has a maximum identifier length of N characters. Use a shorter name or configure a custom alias." Update test match pattern accordingly. https://claude.ai/code/session_017ZAXMwLSnqz4FqvTt5H7D1

sd-db · 2026-04-25T13:38:53Z

/integration-test

github-actions · 2026-04-25T13:39:06Z

Integration tests dispatched for PR #1391 by @sd-db. Track progress in the Actions tab.

github-actions · 2026-04-25T13:44:51Z

Coverage report

Click to see where and how coverage changed

File	Statements	Missing	Coverage	Coverage (new stmts)	Lines missing
dbt/adapters/databricks
relation.py
Project Total

_{This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action}

github-actions · 2026-04-25T15:38:47Z

Integration results for PR #1391 — UC cluster ✅ success · SQL warehouse ✅ success · All-purpose cluster ✅ success

Run details.

sd-db

Changes look good, thx for the fix!

psaikaushik requested review from benc-db, jprakash-db, sd-db and tejassp-db as code owners April 12, 2026 22:59

sd-db requested changes Apr 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread dbt/adapters/databricks/relation.py Outdated

Comment thread dbt/adapters/databricks/relation.py Outdated

Comment thread dbt/adapters/databricks/relation.py Outdated

psaikaushik force-pushed the fix/1309-relation-max-name-length branch from 8494a15 to 6688bce Compare April 21, 2026 21:57

psaikaushik requested a review from sd-db April 21, 2026 21:58

psaikaushik force-pushed the fix/1309-relation-max-name-length branch from 0c3add9 to 2e759c2 Compare April 21, 2026 22:14

psaikaushik force-pushed the fix/1309-relation-max-name-length branch from 2e759c2 to a8b866b Compare April 21, 2026 22:17

sd-db self-assigned this Apr 22, 2026

sd-db reviewed Apr 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread dbt/adapters/databricks/relation.py Outdated

Comment thread tests/unit/test_relation.py Outdated

Comment thread dbt/adapters/databricks/relation.py Outdated

Comment thread CHANGELOG.md Outdated

Comment thread dbt/adapters/databricks/relation.py Outdated

psaikaushik force-pushed the fix/1309-relation-max-name-length branch from 87ebdcf to 75a59a3 Compare April 22, 2026 16:57

psaikaushik requested a review from sd-db April 22, 2026 17:06

psaikaushik and others added 2 commits April 22, 2026 17:08

Merge branch 'main' into fix/1309-relation-max-name-length

d80ebfe

sd-db approved these changes Apr 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

sd-db merged commit d66311a into databricks:main Apr 25, 2026
7 checks passed

Conversation

psaikaushik commented Apr 12, 2026

Summary

Problem

Fix

Checklist

Uh oh!

sd-db commented Apr 21, 2026

Uh oh!

sd-db left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

psaikaushik commented Apr 21, 2026

Uh oh!

psaikaushik commented Apr 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

psaikaushik commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

sd-db commented Apr 25, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 25, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 25, 2026

Coverage report

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 25, 2026

Uh oh!

sd-db left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants