V8-archive: Add parameter to skip junction table

[rijkvanzanten]

We've chosen to return the junction table in many to many requests:

// GET /items/:collection/:pk
{
  data: {
    relationalField: [
      {
        junctionID: 1,
        left: { ...currentItem },
        rightID: { ...relatedItem }
      }
    }
}

While this is expected when working with m2m, lets add a parameter that allows the user to "skip" the junction table:

// GET /items/:collection/:pk?skip-junction=relationalField
{
  data: {
    relationalField: [
      { ...relatedItem }
    ]
  }
}

This parameter could be called skip-junction or skip-relation or something else.

I think the parameter should accept a CSV of field names to 'skip'. There might be a case where you want to junction of 1 field, but not of another. It shouldn't be a modify-all-fields parameter.

Thoughts @WellingGuzman @benhaynes ?

[rijkvanzanten]

(The default should still stay as is, this is purely an extra convenience option in case you're not using the junction table for extra info)

[benhaynes]

@rijkvanzanten does this still apply now that all of our relations are M2Os? I feel like we can skip things with dot-notation and accomplish 95% of this.

[rijkvanzanten]

does this still apply now that all of our relations are M2Os

Yes, that doesn't change a thing in the API output. If you have a M2M setup, you'll still get the junction table. There's no way to skip a nested layer with dot-notation.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[benhaynes]

@rijkvanzanten — you opened this... any feelings on this now?

[rijkvanzanten]

Hmm yes yes I still think this is a really nice to have. I know we don't tend to assume things, but I'm assuming that a majority of many to many relations aren't using any specialty fields in the junction table. By having this parameter, we can make using this relationship in projects a lot easier.

Lets keep it open!

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[benhaynes]

To achieve better clarity/visibility, we are now tracking feature requests within the Feature Request project board.

This issue being closed does not mean it's not being considered.