[Bug] Field with same name as a function in model but not related.

Bug report

If a model has a method with the same name as the db, it assumes that it is a relationship and this method is called.

What I did

My table have a searchable column and one of my fields name (in CrudController) is called searchable. However, Backpack thinks that searchable is a relationship, since it is also a method in my Model (from Scout to be precise).

What I expected to happen

A field without a relationship should be treated as a field without a relationship

What happened

A field without a relationship was guessed as a field with a relationship. The method is called and the app crashes.

What I’ve already tried to fix it

The only solution would be change my db to a name that is not the same as a method in my model.

Backpack, Laravel, PHP, DB version

When I run php artisan backpack:version the output is:

PHP 7.4.5 (cli) (built: Apr 23 2020 02:25:56) ( NTS )
Copyright (c) The PHP Group
Zend Engine v3.4.0, Copyright (c) Zend Technologies
    with Zend OPcache v7.4.5, Copyright (c), by Zend Technologies

### LARAVEL VERSION:
v7.13.0@6fa69bfbd57744a5bbec5538ce483919b3fd625f

### BACKPACK VERSION:
4.1.6@cbd4143d3eb8302916012af205565cd3183f274f

[pxpm]

Hello @robertotcestari

Indeed this is something we changed in 4.1 to allow us to add fields quicker, with less attrition to the developer.

When we did it, I did not expect and I still don’t expect that much people use a field in the database with the same name of a relation that the field is not related with.

We introduced this change mainly to allow us to ‘guess’ relationship data from model. If you do: CRUD::addField('relation_name') we will check if there is a function in the model with the same name as relation_name, but we only do this check if there is no entity in field.

I think there are three possible solutions here:

- Change database field name if you are still developing and can afford it.

- Use a different field name and then use a mutator/acessor to manipulate the field.

- Use 'entity' => false in your field definition.

I think using 'entity' => false solves the problem. But we could agree that it’s not an elegant solution, nor a ver intuitive one.

Me and @tabacitu already talked about it and we discussed the possibility of checking if field name exists as a database column. It might introduce other unwanted caveats, so maybe not the best solution. Also this might not need a solution at all, I think this is a very uncommon scenario.

I will leave this open for a while, please give me your feedback on the solutions provided @robertotcestari so if anyone bumps in the same error they could fix it too.

Also if anyone else bumps into this same issue, please comment bellow 😃

Best,

[tabacitu]

Update: #2971 just got merged, which fixes this by allowing entity => false. Thanks a lot @robertotcestari !