Microbatch Config Validation

[QMalcolm]

Resolves #10709

Problem

We either don't validate configs for microbatch models or validate them during execution. We need parse-time validation to ensure that required fields are present and typed correctly:

• batch_size (day, hour, month, year)
• lookback (int)
• event_time (str)
• begin (datetime)

Additionally, any inputs to a microbatch model that have an event_time config must have that event_time config be a string.

Solution

• implement parse-time validation as part of final manifest validation since we need all ref/sources resolved to scan inputs of microbatch model.

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me.
• I have run this code in development, and it appears to resolve the stated issue.
• This PR includes tests, or tests are not required or relevant for this PR.
• This PR has no interface changes (e.g., macros, CLI, logs, JSON artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc.) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX.
• This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.17647% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.99%. Comparing base (730e40a) to head (c1449bc).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #10752   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.98%   88.99%           
=======================================
  Files         181      181           
  Lines       23059    23093   +34     
=======================================
+ Hits        20520    20551   +31     
- Misses       2539     2542    +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	86.18% <91.17%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
unit	62.25% <5.88%> (-0.09%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
Unit Tests	62.25% <5.88%> (-0.09%)	⬇️
Integration Tests	86.18% <91.17%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

[github-actions]

Thank you for your pull request! We could not find a changelog entry for this change. For details on how to document a change, see the contributing guide.

[QMalcolm]

All this looks good to me 🙂

[MichelleArk]

schemas PR: dbt-labs/schemas.getdbt.com#58

[QMalcolm]

🚀 Looks good