Howdy!
So right now when we're using Arbor, the fragment/1 call in ancestors/1 and descendants/1 are essentially hard coded at compile time because of the restrictions of fragment/1.
However, it would be really nice if they could use the prefix in the given's struct's :__meta__.prefix field so we're always searching for ancestors and descendants in the same schema as the given struct.
Since all of these strings used in fragment/1 need to be compiled and not interpolated, my initial thought is to allow users to configure a number of prefixes that they want to compile functions for, sort of like this:
for prefix <- opts[:prefixes] do
def descendants(%{__meta__: %{prefix: unquote(prefix)}} = struct, depth \\ 2_147_483_647) do
from(
t in unquote(definition),
where:
t.unquote(opts[:primary_key]) in fragment(
unquote("""
WITH RECURSIVE #{opts[:tree_name]} AS (
SELECT #{opts[:primary_key]},
0 AS depth
FROM #{prefix}.#{opts[:table_name]}
WHERE #{opts[:foreign_key]} = ?
UNION ALL
SELECT #{opts[:table_name]}.#{opts[:primary_key]},
#{opts[:tree_name]}.depth + 1
FROM #{prefix}.#{opts[:table_name]}
JOIN #{opts[:tree_name]}
ON #{opts[:table_name]}.#{opts[:foreign_key]} = #{opts[:tree_name]}.#{
opts[:primary_key]
}
WHERE #{opts[:tree_name]}.depth + 1 < ?
)
SELECT #{opts[:primary_key]} FROM #{opts[:tree_name]}
"""),
type(^struct.unquote(opts[:primary_key]), unquote(opts[:foreign_key_type])),
type(^depth, :integer)
)
)
end
end
Then there could be at the end the same definition that you have now with no pattern matching.
So, sound like something that makes sense to you? If so, I'll send along a PR.
Howdy!
So right now when we're using Arbor, the
fragment/1call inancestors/1anddescendants/1are essentially hard coded at compile time because of the restrictions offragment/1.However, it would be really nice if they could use the
prefixin the given's struct's:__meta__.prefixfield so we're always searching for ancestors and descendants in the same schema as the given struct.Since all of these strings used in
fragment/1need to be compiled and not interpolated, my initial thought is to allow users to configure a number of prefixes that they want to compile functions for, sort of like this:Then there could be at the end the same definition that you have now with no pattern matching.
So, sound like something that makes sense to you? If so, I'll send along a PR.