Service / SDL generation is broken when using relations

I’m noticing when you have a relation column that has a different name then the Table it is referring to you get an error like this:

  ✖ Generating SDL files...
    → No schema definition found for `Author` in schema.prisma file
No schema definition found for `Author` in schema.prisma file

This happens when you for example have two tables, Post and User, and you name the user relation different on Post like this:

model Post {
  id       Int    @id @default(autoincrement())
  title    String
  author   User   @relation(fields: [authorId], references: [id])
  authorId Int
}

model User {
  id    Int    @id @default(autoincrement())
  posts Post[]
}

To make it easier to reproduce you can use this repo/branch: https://github.com/jvanbaarsen/rw-examples

It happens when you run: yarn rw g sdl post

[cannikin]

HMMMM

The error is coming from here: https://github.com/redwoodjs/redwood/blob/main/packages/cli/src/lib/index.js#L35-L64 But the code that calls that is this line I’m guessing: https://github.com/redwoodjs/redwood/blob/main/packages/cli/src/commands/generate/sdl/sdl.js#L112 Which specifically tries to look it up by field.type, which would be User or ThingOne, which is correct. hmmmmmmmmm

[brentjanderson]

I’ve run into the same issue. Oddly, I can get it to work in some circumstances but not in othes:

This does not work

model ThingOne {
  id   String @id @default(uuid())
  name String // Why is this needed?

  oneReferencesOnThingTwo      ThingTwo[] @relation("OneReferenceOnThingTwo")
  anotherReferencessOnThingTwo ThingTwo[] @relation("AnotherReferenceOnThingTwo")
}

model ThingTwo {
  id String @id @default(uuid())

  oneReferenceToThingOne       ThingOne  @relation("OneReferenceOnThingTwo", fields: [oneReferenceToThingOneId], references: [id])
  oneReferenceToThingOneId     String
  anotherReferenceToThingOne   ThingOne? @relation("AnotherReferenceOnThingTwo", fields: [anotherReferenceToThingOneId], references: [id])
  anotherReferenceToThingOneId String?
}

This does work

model ThingOne {
  id   String @id @default(uuid())
  name String // Why is this needed?

  oneReferencesOnThingTwo      ThingTwo[] @relation("OneReferenceOnThingTwo")
  anotherReferencessOnThingTwo ThingTwo[] @relation("AnotherReferenceOnThingTwo")
}

model ThingTwo {
  id String @id @default(uuid())

  thingOne          ThingOne  @relation("OneReferenceOnThingTwo", fields: [thingOneId], references: [id])
  thingOneId        String
  anotherThingOne   ThingOne? @relation("AnotherReferenceOnThingTwo", fields: [anotherThingOneId], references: [id])
  anotherThingOneId String?
}

The diff, if it helps:

model ThingOne {
  id   String @id @default(uuid())
  name String // Why is this needed?

  oneReferencesOnThingTwo      ThingTwo[] @relation("OneReferenceOnThingTwo")
  anotherReferencessOnThingTwo ThingTwo[] @relation("AnotherReferenceOnThingTwo")
}

model ThingTwo {
  id String @id @default(uuid())

-  oneReferenceToThingOne       ThingOne  @relation("OneReferenceOnThingTwo", fields: [oneReferenceToThingOneId], references: [id])
+  thingOne                     ThingOne  @relation("OneReferenceOnThingTwo", fields: [thingOneId], references: [id])
-  oneReferenceToThingOneId     String
+  thingOneId        String
-  anotherReferenceToThingOne   ThingOne? @relation("AnotherReferenceOnThingTwo", fields: [anotherReferenceToThingOneId], references: [id])
+  anotherThingOne   ThingOne? @relation("AnotherReferenceOnThingTwo", fields: [anotherThingOneId], references: [id])
-  anotherReferenceToThingOneId String?
+  anotherThingOneId String?
}

I’ve put up a repo demoing this issue. I’ve tagged the commit where it does not work as broken and the commit where it does work as works. The way to test it:

git checkout broken && yarn rw g sdl -f ThingTwo should give you an error:

No schema definition found for `OneReferenceToThingOne` in schema.prisma file

I don’t know what significance there is in the difference between each model. But it’s weird that one works, the other doesn’t, and unless I’m staring past it the only thing that has changed is the name of the fields?