-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
Add Model\AggregateModel
model
#817
Conversation
dc3a13a
to
690e1ca
Compare
src/Model/Aggregate.php
Outdated
|
||
// simple condition | ||
if ($condition instanceof Model\Scope\Condition) { | ||
$query->having(...$condition->toQueryArguments()); |
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.
having
is an interesting argument for Aggregate
class, but we may use HAVING instead or WHERE when grouping is active in general (before we can analyse if HAVING is really needed)
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.
Ok for now if we will integrate it for wrapping like now... But keep this unresolved in GH discussion.
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.
not if we wrap as subquery...
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.
Related with https://github.com/atk4/data/pull/853/files#diff-7e7810cb7d196a13e4c0b10d1c737e5ead3e3169bd82f6b4c1149dcf67d726f0R384 , I belive wrapping is the only solution, having
requires group by
across all columns for some DB vendors (even if grouped by some unique column)
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.
TODO after #946 - traversing may be implemented using model wrapping
but it will require "virtualized Fields" - maybe we should always impl. different persistence fields using specific subobjects
Co-authored-by: Michael Voříšek <mvorisek@mvorisek.cz>
30570d4
to
9d647a2
Compare
9d647a2
to
3db6a8a
Compare
@georgehristov this PR is almost done, please let me know if you have any feedback |
df01c10
to
a40350f
Compare
a40350f
to
a7d86d9
Compare
a7d86d9
to
431da2e
Compare
431da2e
to
5d8ee39
Compare
2f27f5d
to
a46433d
Compare
8a28632
to
95af333
Compare
257ba85
to
c6c8921
Compare
extracted from atk4/report and original #677