You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Originally posted by: BourbonBristles#9051 on Discord Support Forum
Feature Description
I would like the option to store a single Connector selection as a single JSON object, instead of an array. This vastly simplifies keeping that (usually) denormalized field in sync, as well as simplify firestore querying for that field.
This would also allow us to implement the Connector feature in-place, without editing the rest of the codebase to support an array. We can get around that now by using a derivative that extracts the item, but this make syncing and programmatically updating that field more complex. A simple opt-in to change the output format to an object would suffice. Is there another way to accomplish this that I am missing?
For a simple example, you could just take a Book/Author relationship.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I expected the field type be determined by the allow "Allow for multiple item selection" option. If only one option can be selected there is no need for the output to be an array
Originally posted by: BourbonBristles#9051 on Discord Support Forum
Feature Description
I would like the option to store a single Connector selection as a single JSON object, instead of an array. This vastly simplifies keeping that (usually) denormalized field in sync, as well as simplify firestore querying for that field.
This would also allow us to implement the Connector feature in-place, without editing the rest of the codebase to support an array. We can get around that now by using a derivative that extracts the item, but this make syncing and programmatically updating that field more complex. A simple opt-in to change the output format to an object would suffice. Is there another way to accomplish this that I am missing?
For a simple example, you could just take a Book/Author relationship.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: