http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=1178777


in reply to Re: DBI::Class relationship naming
in thread DBI::Class relationship naming

Probably a red herring, but "fieldwiths" and "fieldwithout" share a common prefix of length 9, as do "groupnames" and "groupname" (also length 9).

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: DBI::Class relationship naming
by Beatnik (Parson) on Jan 01, 2017 at 19:47 UTC
    That would be the easy explanation.. Unfortunately, the production fieldnames are 20+ characters long and the behavior is the same.


    Greetz
    Beatnik
    ... I'm belgian but I don't play one on TV.
[reply]
      I know that Postgres can handle names of 64 characters, but in the code above you call it a method. I know next to nothing about DBIC, but if it uses XS/C/C++, there could happen some name mangling on the way from field name to method name.

      Does the problem persist, when the names differ already in the first few characters?

[reply]
        My 2 tables use different field names.. So table1 has a field identitygroupname, pointing to another table, properly mapped with a table relationship. table2 has a field identitygroups, pointing to another table, properly mapped with a table relationship. 
        my $foo = $t1->identitygroupname->name;
my $bar = $t2->identitygroup->name;

        [download]
        The belongs_to definition in DBIC::Schema::Result::T1 looks like this: 
        __PACKAGE__->belongs_to(
  "fieldwith",
  "DBIC::Schema::Result::R1",
  { id => "fieldwiths" },
  {
    is_deferrable => 0,
    join_type     => "LEFT",
    on_delete     => "NO ACTION",
    on_update     => "NO ACTION",
  },
);

        [download]
        I'm not sure if this is a bug in dbicdump or something on purpose. I very much doubt that this is a Postgresql issue.


        Greetz
        Beatnik
        ... I'm belgian but I don't play one on TV.
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom