feat: allow to-many ordering #4592
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -106,35 +106,29 @@ spec = describe "related queries" $ do | |
| , matchHeaders = [matchContentTypeJson] | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| it "works on a to-many relationship" $ do | ||
| get "/clients?select=*,projects(*)&order=projects(id)&projects.order=id.asc" `shouldRespondWith` | ||
| [json|[ | ||
| {"id":1,"name":"Microsoft","projects":[{"id":1,"name":"Windows 7","client_id":1},{"id":2,"name":"Windows 10","client_id":1}]}, | ||
| {"id":2,"name":"Apple","projects":[{"id":3,"name":"IOS","client_id":2},{"id":4,"name":"OSX","client_id":2}]} | ||
| ]|] | ||
|
Comment on lines
+109
to
+114
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Since there are multiple rows in the to-many end, how do we decide which row we order into?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. what do you mean exactly? can you please give me an example?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. I may be misinterpreting @steve-chavez, but in this example the nested relationship has two rows for the first "projects":[
{"id":1,"name":"Windows 7","client_id":1},
{"id":2,"name":"Windows 10","client_id":1}
]So, does it take From what I see in other example, it should order the top relationship according to the first element of the nested relationship (in this case
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Now I understand what you mean. It works like the internal postgres array sorting mechanism. I attached an example image from my application. For your info, the application uses the uuid behind the displayName of the account to sort. Example matrix: results in: 
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Fridious Could you answer/clarify the above? I don't quite get your example.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. OK, so basically this is the main query without the SELECT "test"."clients".*,
COALESCE("clients_projects_1"."clients_projects_1", '[]') AS "projects"
FROM "test"."clients"
LEFT JOIN LATERAL
(SELECT json_agg("clients_projects_1" ORDER BY "clients_projects_1"."id" ASC)::jsonb AS "clients_projects_1",
array_agg("clients_projects_1"."id" ORDER BY "clients_projects_1"."id") AS "clients_projects_1_ord_1"
FROM
(SELECT "projects_1".*
FROM "test"."projects" AS "projects_1"
WHERE "projects_1"."client_id" = "test"."clients"."id"
ORDER BY "projects_1"."id" ASC) AS "clients_projects_1") AS "clients_projects_1" ON TRUE
ORDER BY "clients_projects_1"."clients_projects_1_ord_1"So it would order by the result of the insert into test.projects values (20,'Test',1);Ordering the internal by curl 'localhost:3000/clients?select=*,projects(*)&projects.order=id.desc&order=projects(id).asc'[
{"id":1,"name":"Microsoft","projects":[
{"id": 20, "name": "Test", "client_id": 1},
{"id": 2, "name": "Windows 10", "client_id": 1},
{"id": 1, "name": "Windows 7", "client_id": 1}
]},
{"id":2,"name":"Apple","projects":[
{"id": 4, "name": "OSX", "client_id": 2},
{"id": 3, "name": "IOS", "client_id": 2}
]}
]Is this expected? If so it looks confusing from a user perspective.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Maybe I explained it a little too confusing. To me, this looks correct.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. OK, so
There are many new things here since we didn't allow to-many ordering before, that's why we're doing many questions here to understand better the implementation. The next step would be to check the integration with other features like aggregates, spread operator, nested resources, etc. I'll be reviewing those and check if anything breaks (these would need to be added to tests too).
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Got it, thanks for the clarification. Please let me know if there’s anything you’d like me to change or add on my side.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. For starters, this would need a Documentation entry, but in order to do that we need to define the use case with clarity as mentioned here #4592 (comment) (what exactly does the user expect to get with this feature). |
||
| { matchStatus = 200 | ||
| , matchHeaders = [matchContentTypeJson] | ||
| } | ||
| get "/clients?select=*,pros:projects(*)&order=pros(id)&pros.order=id.asc" `shouldRespondWith` | ||
| [json|[ | ||
| {"id":1,"name":"Microsoft","pros":[{"id":1,"name":"Windows 7","client_id":1},{"id":2,"name":"Windows 10","client_id":1}]}, | ||
| {"id":2,"name":"Apple","pros":[{"id":3,"name":"IOS","client_id":2},{"id":4,"name":"OSX","client_id":2}]} | ||
| ]|] | ||
| { matchStatus = 200 | ||
| , matchHeaders = [matchContentTypeJson] | ||
| } | ||
| get "/designers?select=id,computed_videogames(id)&order=computed_videogames(id).desc&computed_videogames.order=id.asc" `shouldRespondWith` | ||
| [json|[ | ||
| {"id":2,"computed_videogames":[{"id":3},{"id":4}]}, | ||
| {"id":1,"computed_videogames":[{"id":1},{"id":2}]} | ||
| ]|] | ||
| { matchStatus = 200 | ||
| , matchHeaders = [matchContentTypeJson] | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All these test case changes are changing something like
order=x(y)toorder.x=y. But that's not the same, right?I believe the
order.x=yordering worked before already and just sorts the embedding, not the top-level.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe. I will adjust the tests. thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
for my personal use case, I can now use these queries:
curl "http://localhost:3000/person?select=sys_id,first_name,last_name,relation_owned_persons(source_id,reference:sys_user(sys_display_name))&order=relation_owned_persons(source_id).asc&offset=0&limit=10"