Model.$with

[dan-gamble]

This is in response to #36

First PR so please bear with me @jplhomer!

This feels like it's been way "simpler" than I was expecting so I feel I'm almost certainly missing something.

The doc wording has been "lifted" from Laravel's docs as I'm really not that great at writing so I felt that was a good place to start. I've not used Laravel but I used Laravel's implementation as inspiration for this.

TL;DR static $with

export class User extends Model {
  static $with = ["posts", "profile"];

  posts?: Post[] | Promise<Post[]>;
  $posts() {
    return this.hasMany(Post);
  }

  profile?: Profile | Promise<Profile>;
  $profile() {
    return this.hasOne(Profile);
  }
}

[dan-gamble]

I think this is ready now @jplhomer

[jplhomer]

Awesome work! Thank you. A couple questions:

• What's your thinking behind $with instead of with? I know the convention is kind of there with the double-relation name thing already, but is it useful to perpetuate to all other sorts of conventions?
• Does it need to be static? I noticed Laravel's is an instance method instead of a static method.

[dan-gamble]

Does it need to be static? I noticed Laravel's is an instance method instead of a static method.

Nope! I swear I was getting a syntax error in my editor when doing this but I don't seem to now. That explains why I went static with it. With that said, because this is at a class level as opposed to an instance level (compared to a relationship accessor) I feel static might make sense still. I'm easy either way.

What's your thinking behind $with instead of with? I know the convention is kind of there with the double-relation name thing already, but is it useful to perpetuate to all other sorts of conventions?

For me I took the $ as evidencing something "magic". I wanted to preserve all static attributes so they can be mapped to the database. A column of with for example would overwrite this or we'd need to provide an explanation in the Proxy.