When having a list of values, assigning anything to the field will actually mark the field as dirty, even if a list was completely the same.

This is mainly because fields receive new array instances, and currently that will make the field consider itself dirty, which is in most cases just wrong.

We need to implement a smarter way of checking the received values, and only mark the field dirty when that's truly the case.

Hello.
I want to know how create model from the title. Belllow what I want to achive

const User = pipe(
  withName('User'),
  withFields({
    name: string(),
    friends: ref({
      list: true,
      instanceOf: User,
    }),
  })
)();

const user1 = User()
user1.populate({
  name: 'User 1'
})

const user2 = User()
user2.populate({
  name: 'User 2',
  friends: [user1]
})

The idea for Adding Table of Content to Readme.md to add additional enhancement and readability to the docs file.

I would like to work on this issue.

Currently, for list: true fields, we just iterate over values, and if a value is invalid, we throw an error and stop the process.

And even more importantly, the error that is thrown, doesn't tell on which index in the list the error occurred, just the field name.

In previous version, we had the exact index, so let's try to bring that back.

Currently, when you send data to a list of models (using fields field), the new data is just assigned and the old is lost.

This means that the data will always be marked as dirty, when in fact, only one field might have been changed. This prevents the users to do isDirty() checks completely.

By assigning IDs (a simple "id" field for every item), we can actually efficiently compare received data and current data in the field, and completely fix the problem explained above.

P.S. This should also tackle the following value: [] we needed to make here:

fields({ list: true, instanceOf: LockedFieldsModel, value: [] })

This test should work:

latotty@1da09cc

Am I doing something wrong, or is it something wrong with the commodo?

Introduction

Currently, the withStorage layer works with the id field as the entity's PK. The value of the id field is always a simple MongoDB ID.

This is not good for a couple of reasons.

1. In some databases, like e.g. DynamoDB, the user basically never uses a randomly generated ID for PKs. So, this means we need to ensure that users can use any arbitrary string as the PK.

2. Users cannot define a composite PK - a key that consists of two or more fields.

The solution

We need to allow users to use any arbitrary string as the PK, and we need to allow defining composite PKs.

Implementation details

TBD