-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
🎨 Why is list_source
called this way and not .sources
or similar?
#1863
Comments
So, the above could simply make use of the pattern that we'd encourage, rather than requiring users to learn a new pattern: bt.CellType.sources.get(currently_used=True) |
list_source
called this way and not .sources
or similar?list_source
called this way and not .sources
or similar?
It needs to be |
@falexwolf can you confirm you want this? laminlabs/bionty#116 I don't think |
Hm. I don't get the reason why this isn't a We should have a naming scheme for such cases that behave like a ManyToMany but actually aren't. How about |
Because it's not a relationship! Look at the schema, the relationship is a FK for each record called
|
It's at the class level! |
Why don't we recommend the following?
This is 100% equivalent to getting all the users who, e.g., created artifacts. We should have a single way for users to query this inverse relationships. The easiest would be to rely on existing Django idioms for that matter, I'd say. 🤔 Unfortunately, we might just have removed the easy way to query for all |
The inverse relationship is removed. |
Even if |
It looks like it returns a
QuerySet
and not a list.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: