Improve usability of verification suite results if validation is a success

[andreaslang]

I am not sure if I am missing something, but I have been struggling making historical verification suite results usable in the sense of that I know what the actual condition was. I have been using hints, which makes things better for failed checks (I actually see what I was checking for), but hints are not added if the assertion was OK.

This code in AnalysisBasedConstraint.scala is what I mean in particular.

          if (assertionOk) {
            ConstraintResult(this, ConstraintStatus.Success, metric = Some(metric))
          } else {
            var errorMessage = s"Value: $assertOn does not meet the constraint requirement!"
            hint.foreach(hint => errorMessage += s" $hint")

            ConstraintResult(this, ConstraintStatus.Failure, Some(errorMessage), Some(metric))
          }

I feel like I am missing a trick here, maybe also caused by the fact that I am using things indirectly via pydeequ, but isn't there a way to get to some output, which tells me: You checked for this (via hint), the metric was this (via assertOn) and all was fine.

Essentially this would be perfect:

          if (assertionOk) {
            val successMessage = s"Value: $assertOn does meet the constraint requirement!"
            hint.foreach(hint => successMessage += s" $hint")

            ConstraintResult(this, ConstraintStatus.Success, Some(successMessage), Some(metric))
          } else {
            var errorMessage = s"Value: $assertOn does not meet the constraint requirement!"
            hint.foreach(hint => errorMessage += s" $hint")

            ConstraintResult(this, ConstraintStatus.Failure, Some(errorMessage), Some(metric))
          }

[twollnik]

We like this idea, can you submit a PR?

[andreaslang]

Sure can do, will put something up in the next few days.

[twollnik]

Thanks. Don't worry about doing this quickly, we likely won't get around to reviewing the PR until mid august or end of august anyway.