fix: Treat assoc-like calculated elements as unmanaged assocs #830
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Association like calculated elements have been re-written by the compiler they essentially behave like unmanaged associations as their calculations have been incorporated into an on-condition which is handled elsewhere → We don't need to treat them any different than a regular unmanaged association.
patricebender
requested review from
danjoa,
johannes-vogel,
stewsk,
BobdenOs,
sjvans and
David-Kunz
as code owners
stewsk
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2024
Merged
patricebender
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2024
as documented in #830, assoc-like calculated elements are re-written by the compiler to include the calculation directives in their on-conditions. Hence, we can allow those assoc-like calculated elements everywhere, where unmanaged associations can be used: 1. `exists` predicate 2. scoped queries 3. nested projections this PR implements 1. and 2.
johannes-vogel
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2024
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- <details><summary>db-service: 1.14.0</summary> ## [1.14.0](db-service-v1.13.0...db-service-v1.14.0) (2024-10-15) ### Added * assoc-like calc elements after exists predicate ([#831](#831)) ([05f7d75](05f7d75)) ### Fixed * Improved behavioral consistency between the database services ([#837](#837)) ([b6f7187](b6f7187)) * Treat assoc-like calculated elements as unmanaged assocs ([#830](#830)) ([cbe0df7](cbe0df7)) </details> <details><summary>sqlite: 1.7.4</summary> ## [1.7.4](sqlite-v1.7.3...sqlite-v1.7.4) (2024-10-15) ### Fixed * Improved behavioral consistency between the database services ([#837](#837)) ([b6f7187](b6f7187)) </details> <details><summary>postgres: 1.10.1</summary> ## [1.10.1](postgres-v1.10.0...postgres-v1.10.1) (2024-10-15) ### Fixed * add cds schema for postgres build plugin ([#843](#843)) ([6306d5c](6306d5c)) * Improved behavioral consistency between the database services ([#837](#837)) ([b6f7187](b6f7187)) * null as default value ([#845](#845)) ([0041ec0](0041ec0)) </details> <details><summary>hana: 1.3.1</summary> ## [1.3.1](hana-v1.3.0...hana-v1.3.1) (2024-10-15) ### Fixed * combination of groupby and orderby ([#825](#825)) ([10e0534](10e0534)) * Improved behavioral consistency between the database services ([#837](#837)) ([b6f7187](b6f7187)) * list optimization for `Buffer` values ([#817](#817)) ([3e60de2](3e60de2)) * null as default value ([#845](#845)) ([0041ec0](0041ec0)) </details> --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please). --------- Co-authored-by: Johannes Vogel <johannes.vogel@sap.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Association like calculated elements have been re-written by the compiler they essentially behave like unmanaged associations as their calculations have been incorporated into an on-condition which is handled elsewhere
→ We don't need to treat them any different than a regular unmanaged association.