feat: add MorphTo relation
#106
Conversation
… not know if the database will be properly initialized before define is called
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #106 +/- ##
==========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
==========================================
Files 38 40 +2
Lines 1153 1255 +102
Branches 185 185
==========================================
+ Hits 1153 1255 +102
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
* Refactoring match to remove results and rely on query instead * Exporting Schemas type * Moving DictionaryByEntities interface to Relation * Copy eager loads to newQueryWithConstraints method
| * Create a new MorphTo relation instance. | ||
| */ | ||
| static morphTo( | ||
| related: typeof Model[], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would be the disadvantage of supporting single OR multiple model references here? For example, supporting this.morphTo(Post, ...) and this.morphTo([Post, Comment], ...). I think this feels more natural and consistent with other behaviours where single/multiple values co-exist.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well I think it's OK to let it only access array of Models. Because if you only need one model, that is BelongsTo relation 👀
| protected buildDictionary(models: Collection): Record<string, Model> { | ||
| return models.reduce<Record<string, Model>>((dictionary, model) => { | ||
| dictionary[model[this.ownerKey]] = model | ||
|
|
||
| return dictionary | ||
| }, {}) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a recurring theme with this type of dictionary that might warrant a shorthand method equivalent to the mapToDictionary on the Relation object. Though, I'm not sure what it'd be called to distinguish a dictionary of Model (singular) and Models (plural).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah maybe. inverse relationship is a bit special so 👀 But yeah we could create a shared function and share it. We could refactor this later.
Should target to #105