On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Michael Bayer wrote:
>
> What is implied by relationship() is that you're joining and limiting a full
> set of records using a join condition. This implies that the mapped
> selectable would be returning a set of rows corresponding to all possible
> child collect
On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:19 PM, botz wrote:
> Thanks for that... I didn't manage to get it to work straight off, but
> it seems like I'm close.
>
> Tried a couple things just to force it to behave as I wanted.
>
>
> # defined the selectable
> selectable = select( [ sql.column( 'x' ), sql.column('
And really if I could just plug in the argument for the foo_props
call, at least in this case it would remove the need for the foreign
key altogether as the join is really handled by the semantics of the
foo_props call, which happens to only return the one related row.
I suppose this could all be
Thanks for that... I didn't manage to get it to work straight off, but
it seems like I'm close.
Tried a couple things just to force it to behave as I wanted.
# defined the selectable
selectable = select( [ sql.column( 'x' ), sql.column('y')],
from_obj =
[ func.foo_
On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:20 PM, botz wrote:
> oops, didn't mean to submit that quite yet. crazy dog...
>
> anyways, given that I have foo_props() which acts as a kind of from-
> clause
> as in
> select * from foo_props( 123);
>
> I'd like to use that in relationship to a Foo class
>
> i.e.
> m
oops, didn't mean to submit that quite yet. crazy dog...
anyways, given that I have foo_props() which acts as a kind of from-
clause
as in
select * from foo_props( 123);
I'd like to use that in relationship to a Foo class
i.e.
mapper( Foo, foo_table, properties( props = relationship( FooProps
