Is schema name the last part of module name?

[tawdry compass]

I'm postfixing schema modules Entity. And I though actual schema name would be schema <this>.
But has_many looks for entity_id instead of <schema>_id.

Is schema name inferred from the module name? Or am I missing something?

defmodule Feder.Auth.Account.Entity do
  use Feder, :entity

  schema "account" do
    field :email, :string
    # invalid association `access` in schema Feder.Auth.Account.Entity: associated schema Feder.Auth.Access.Entity does not have field `entity_id`
    has_many :access, Feder.Auth.Access.Entity

    timestamps()
  end

  ...
end

[summer bridge]

yes, it is inferred. your schema is missing belongs_to

[analog jungle]

In this case though is it because you need to include the foreign_key option to has_many? https://hexdocs.pm/ecto/Ecto.Schema.html#has_many/3-options

[summer bridge]

there is no belongs_to so there is no field no matter what you name the foreign key

[analog jungle]

but the docs say:

defaults to the underscored name of the current schema suffixed by _id

[tawdry compass]

I do have belongs_to on the other side and I can silence it with foreign_key

OK I'm just surprised by how libraries use the last part of the module name...

[summer bridge]

damn I thought it was referring to itself, I'm too tired 😄

[tawdry compass]

Isn't it more sensible to use the table name? Why the last part of module name?

[analog jungle]

yeah, there's several spots in ecto and Phoenix that use the module name...

[tawdry compass]

LiveView has similar affinity to the last part

[summer bridge]

schemas aren't connected to tables, you can have many schemas for one table

[analog jungle]

yeah and you can actually dynamically switch out the table for a schema at query time too

[tawdry compass]

Then all the has_many will infer the same name!

[summer bridge]

they won't because it's based on the module name, not table name

schemas might not even have tables at all

that's why it's based on the module name, not the table name

[tawdry compass]

Oh okay,

what should I look it up to understand the concept? I knuw basics of SQL

I thought schema > table all the time and it's what StackOverflow gives me

[summer bridge]

there is nothing requiring that. maybe you have one table where you have two schemas that read different fields from the table. or you can use Ecto to manage data that is not in a DB at all

[tawdry compass]

Oh okay, so schema is a way to look at a table?

[summer bridge]

might be. a schema is a schema and it might or might not be related to a table

[tawdry compass]

I see, docs says it's just source, not a table, thanks!

[sacred juniper]

Wasnt schema like prototype of the table btw??? Or the structure of the table

Is it different in elixir if a table has two schemas does that mean table has two different structures at a time how is that possible