The isPrimaryKey check is not implemented

[nikie]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Check isPrimaryKey is not implemented in PyDeequ.

Describe the solution you'd like
The isPrimaryKey check would look better if implemented.

Describe alternatives you've considered
N/A

[sudsali]

Hey @nikie,
Please resolve the comments on the PR and make the necessary changes.

[github-actions]

Thanks for the follow-up. The isPrimaryKey check is indeed listed as "Not Implemented" in the PyDeequ checks documentation. It looks like there's already a PR in progress to add this feature.

As a workaround until isPrimaryKey is merged, you can achieve equivalent behavior using hasUniqueness with an assertion of 1.0 on the primary key column(s):

from pydeequ.checks import Check, CheckLevel
from pydeequ.verification import VerificationSuite, VerificationResult

check = Check(spark, CheckLevel.Error, "PK Check")

# Single column primary key
checkResult = VerificationSuite(spark) \
    .onData(df) \
    .addCheck(
        check.hasUniqueness(["id"], lambda x: x == 1.0) \
            .isComplete("id")
    ) \
    .run()

checkResult_df = VerificationResult.checkResultsAsDataFrame(spark, checkResult)
checkResult_df.show()

This combines completeness (no nulls) and uniqueness (no duplicates), which is semantically equivalent to a primary key constraint.

Regarding the PR — it sounds like there are outstanding review comments that need to be addressed before it can be merged. The PR author should resolve those comments and push the necessary changes.

---

Generated by AI (model: us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1, prompt: 17516c65) — may not be fully accurate. Reply if this doesn't help.

[nikie]

Hi, @sudsali,
I have addressed the PR comments, made changes and resolved conversations.

[github-actions]

This appears to be a coordination matter between the PR author (@nikie) and the reviewer (@sudsali) regarding the isPrimaryKey implementation PR. The PR author has indicated they've addressed the review comments and resolved conversations. This needs a maintainer to review the updated PR and proceed with the merge process. I don't have visibility into the PR status or the specific changes made.

This has also been flagged for our maintainer team to review.

---

Generated by AI (model: us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1, prompt: 17516c65) — may not be fully accurate. Reply if this doesn't help.

[sudsali]

Closing the issue since the PR has been merged.