Diwakar Gupta

Just wanted to inform that ```rust // This will work assert!(ActiveValue::Set(2) == 2); // This will give compilation error assert!(2 == ActiveValue::Set(2)); ```

`PartialEq` This will make sure that we are only comparing with `sea_query::Value` rather than something that can be converted to `sea_query::Value`, am i right? If i am right then user...

based on the requirement from issue this will work. Never thought it can be solved with this simplicity.

Can we give thought to possible solution once again below only utilizes Set and Unchanged only but client api is very simple ```rust assert!(ActiveValue::Set(2) == 2); ``` this utilizes Set...

@billy1624 Not sure but i did a POC please check Outcome ```rust assert!(ActiveValue::Set(2) == 2); assert_ne!(ActiveValue::Set(2), 3); assert_ne!( ActiveValue::Unchanged(String::from("hi")), String::from("bye") ); assert!(ActiveValue::Unchanged(String::from("hi")) == String::from("hi")); ``` ```rust impl PartialEq for ActiveValue...

Thanks for the feedback. I will look after replacing `DeriveModel` with `DeriveModelDarling`. This will lead to changes in `impl_from_query_result` `impl_model_trait` as they both depend on `struct DeriveModel`.

@billy1624 The comment was a report of changes done; Then I did some more changes and it became irrelevant. Here is the latest summary. All this are also commented in...

Thanks @billy1624 I will study the reference you have given.

hey @billy1624 i have used your pr https://github.com/SeaQL/sea-orm/pull/1560 and fixed the merge conflict.

panicking is raised from `sea-orm` here https://github.com/SeaQL/sea-orm/blob/e1297850ac7fe59f28d5273c88dddb8d2e1e4e36/src/query/insert.rs#L130-L146 My understanding from the code is underlying function `pub fn add(mut self, m: M) -> Self` is called for each model and then...