Refactor db layer to access results in a consistent way #137
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This allows for attribute access instead of mapping-style access. The latter more closely resembles how we will later interact with the ORM objects.
To make attribute access possible, which will be more similar when we do switch over to ORM
Since we are selecting based on the primary key we should always get at most one result.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
SQLAlchemy provides a number of ways to fetch results from the database. While developing new endpoints, I am slowly learning how to use the various methods better. This is refactor refactors some old implementations to make them more consistent with my latest understanding of how to use SQLAlchemy core. It's likely this still isn't ideal, but it's better and the returned results will also be more similar to ORM objects which would be used in the future (e.g., attribute access instead of key access).
Closes #106