Expand composite id for (not) in queries targeting association properties.#2284
Open
christophstrobl wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
Open
Expand composite id for (not) in queries targeting association properties.#2284christophstrobl wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
christophstrobl wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
QueryMapper now makes sure to expand ids consisting of more than one value into an AND/OR combined statement. Prior to this change the value was pushed down unmodified to create an IN statement.
christophstrobl
force-pushed
the
issue/2276
branch
from
fdf9b3c to
6a2305f
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR makes sure to expand composite ids used in
IN/NOT INqueries on an association property.It also addresses an issue in the combination logic for not in that may lead to missing out matching results.
Future development may consider database specific tuple syntax for more readable statements and potentially improved server side query planning.
Closes: #2276