🎨 Why is list_source called this way and not .sources or similar?

[falexwolf]

It looks like it returns a QuerySet and not a list.

[falexwolf]

So, the above could simply make use of the pattern that we'd encourage, rather than requiring users to learn a new pattern:

bt.CellType.sources.get(currently_used=True)

[sunnyosun]

It needs to be .sources()

[sunnyosun]

laminlabs/bionty#116

[sunnyosun]

@falexwolf can you confirm you want this? laminlabs/bionty#116

I don't think .sources is possible because it must be a class attribute.

[falexwolf]

Hm. I don't get the reason why this isn't a ManyToMany accessor. Why isn't it?

We should have a naming scheme for such cases that behave like a ManyToMany but actually aren't.

How about query_sources()? But I gotta admit that any naming scheme seems odd if .sources can't be a many to many.

[sunnyosun]

Because it's not a relationship! Look at the schema, the relationship is a FK for each record called .source.

.sources() is a method in the base class.

[sunnyosun]

It's at the class level!

[falexwolf]

Why don't we recommend the following?

bt.Source.filter(created_cell_types__isnull=False).all()

This is 100% equivalent to getting all the users who, e.g., created artifacts. We should have a single way for users to query this inverse relationships. The easiest would be to rely on existing Django idioms for that matter, I'd say. 🤔

Unfortunately, we might just have removed the easy way to query for all Source records. This Slack thread.

[sunnyosun]

The inverse relationship is removed.

[sunnyosun]

bt.Source.filter(created_cell_types__isnull=False).all()
This is to query for which sources are linked to the existing records.

.list_source() is getting available sources independent of what ontology records are in the registry!

Even if bt.CellType is empty, bt.CellType.list_sources() will return all sources!

[falexwolf]

is getting available sources independent of what ontology records are in the registry

But that's even easier to achieve with

bt.Source.filter(entity="CellType").all()

I don't understand why we don't clearly document that query and rather introduce something non-idiomatic.

This is already a long list for which it's hard to develop intuition for: