Rely on search_path (instead of "public") when deciding to fully-qualify view name

[smudge]

This should resolve the discrepancies in #327 and #325, and is in response to a behavior introduced in #152.

The heart of the issue is in how "public" was hardcoded in #152, because it assumes that "public" will be at the front of the search path (and is therefore the reason a view name should or should not be fully-qualified in schema.rb). But "public" being first in the search path is just a default configuration[^1] that can be overridden in a few different ways (e.g. schema_search_path in database.yml, or by setting it at the user/connection level, which some PAAS providers do).

In reality, PostgreSQL will create unqualified tables/views in current_schema(), and so we can rely on that to determine whether a view was created in the observer's default schema. (This is how Rails handles enum names when returning a list of all defined enums, a lookup case which otherwise appears very similar to what the scenic gem does for views.[^2])

This should resolve issues where laptop 1 and laptop 2 have different default schemas (or where different environments/deployments use different default schema names) but must share a schema.rb file; as long as the view is locally created in the (local's) default schema, the view will go unnamespaced in the generated schema file, but for anyone who writes a migration that explicitly creates a view in a non-default schema, that explicit schema name will survive the round-trip, as desired. Win-win 👍 .

[^1]: Technically "$user" (which resolves to the current PG user's name) is first by default, but that schema also doesn't exist by default, so current_schema() ends up being "public" by default. [^2]: This was introduced in rails/rails#45740

[smudge]

Hmm, it seems the existing code was already in violation of the line length -- I assume hound only runs on the changed lines? 🤔

[calebhearth]

Hmm I’m inclined to like this approach but I’ll want to take a closer look. Thank you!On Jan 17, 2024, at 10:53 AM, Nathan Griffith @.***> wrote: Hmm, it seems the existing code was already in violation of the line length -- I assume hound only runs on the changed lines? 🤔

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[smudge]

(rebased due to file conflicts)

[teoljungberg]

I'd be interesting in hearing what you reason about this @calebhearth - as @smudge has laid forth a similar proposal in fx (teoljungberg/fx#140). I'd like if Scenic and fx handled this the same way.

[derekprior]

My thought right now is that adding specific handling of schema to scenic was a mistake and that we should remove it. It has led to a number of issues raised by users. I think it makes sense to behave exactly as rails behaves with tables. If you want to store views in a different schema then you need a different search path. I think #402 would make that something that could be done rather trivially and in line with Rails conventions.