# Relationships

Relationships describe the connections between resources and are a core component of Ash. Defining relationships enables you to do things like

- Loading related data
- Filtering on related data
- Managing related records through changes on a single resource
- Authorizing based on the state of related data

## Relationships Basics

A relationship exists between a source resource and a destination resource. These are defined in the `relationships` block of the source resource. For example, if `MyApp.Tweet` is the source resource, and `MyApp.User` is the destination resource, we could define a relationship called `:owner` like this:

```elixir
defmodule MyApp.Tweet do
  use Ash.Resource,
    data_layer: my_data_layer

  attributes do
    uuid_primary_key :id
    attribute :body, :string
  end

  relationships do
    belongs_to :owner, MyApp.User
  end
end
```

## Managing related data

See [Managing Relationships](/documentation/topics/resources/relationships.md#managing-relationships) for more information.

Your data layer may enforce foreign key constraints, see the following guides for more information:

- [AshPostgres references](https://hexdocs.pm/ash_postgres/references.html)

## Kinds of relationships

There are four kinds of relationships:

- [`belongs_to`](#belongs-to)
- [`has_one`](#has-one)
- [`has_many`](#has-many)
- [`many_to_many`](#many-to-many)

Each of these relationships has a `source` resource and a `destination` resource with a corresponding attribute on the source resource (`source_attribute`), and destination resource (`destination_attribute`). Relationships will validate that their configured attributes exist at compile time.

You don't need to have a corresponding "reverse" relationship for every relationship, i.e if you have a `MyApp.Tweet` resource with `belongs_to :user, MyApp.User` you aren't required to have a `has_many :tweets, MyApp.Tweet` on `MyApp.User`. All that is required is that the attributes used by the relationship exist.

### Belongs To

```elixir
# on MyApp.Tweet
belongs_to :owner, MyApp.User
```

A `belongs_to` relationship means that there is an attribute (`source_attribute`) on the source resource that uniquely identifies a record with a matching attribute (`destination_attribute`) in the destination. In the example above, the source attribute on `MyApp.Tweet` is `:owner_id` and the destination attribute on `MyApp.User` is `:id`.

#### Attribute Defaults

By default, the `source_attribute` is defined as `:<relationship_name>_id` of the type `:uuid` on the source resource and the `destination_attribute` is assumed to be `:id`. You can override the attribute names by specifying the `source_attribute` and `destination_attribute` options like so:

```elixir
belongs_to :owner, MyApp.User do
  # defaults to :<relationship_name>_id (i.e. :owner_id)
  source_attribute :custom_attribute_name

  # defaults to :id
  destination_attribute :custom_attribute_name
end
```

You can further customize the `source_attribute` using options such as:

- `d:Ash.Resource.Dsl.relationships.belongs_to|define_attribute?` to define it yourself
- `d:Ash.Resource.Dsl.relationships.belongs_to|attribute_type` to modify the default type
- `d:Ash.Resource.Dsl.relationships.belongs_to|attribute_public?` to make the source attribute `public?: true`

For example:

```elixir
belongs_to :owner, MyApp.User do
  attribute_type :integer
  attribute_writable? false
end
```

Or if you wanted to define the attribute yourself,

```elixir
attributes do
  attribute :owner_foo, MyApp.CustomType
end

...
relationships do
  belongs_to :owner, MyApp.User do
    define_attribute? false
    source_attribute :owner_foo
  end
end
```

#### Customizing default belongs_to attribute type

Destination attributes that are added by default are assumed to be `:uuid`. To change this, set the following configuration in `config.exs`:

```elixir
config :ash, :default_belongs_to_type, :integer
```

See the docs for more: `d:Ash.Resource.Dsl.relationships.belongs_to`

### Has One

```elixir
# on MyApp.User
has_one :profile, MyApp.Profile
```

A `has_one` relationship means that there is a unique attribute (`destination_attribute`) on the destination resource that identifies a record with a matching unique attribute (`source_resource`) in the source. In the example above, the source attribute on `MyApp.User` is `:id` and the destination attribute on `MyApp.Profile` is `:user_id`.

A `has_one` is similar to a `belongs_to` except the reference attribute is on
the destination resource, instead of the source.

#### Attribute Defaults

By default, the `source_attribute` is assumed to be `:id`, and `destination_attribute` defaults to `<snake_cased_last_part_of_module_name>_id`.

See the docs for more: `d:Ash.Resource.Dsl.relationships.has_one`

### Has Many

```elixir
# on MyApp.User
has_many :tweets, MyApp.Tweet
```

A `has_many` relationship means that there is a non-unique attribute (`destination_attribute`) on the destination resource that identifies a record with a matching attribute (`source_attribute`) in the source. In the example above, the source attribute on `MyApp.User` is `:id` and the destination attribute on `MyApp.Tweet` is `:user_id`.

A `has_many` relationship is similar to a `has_one` because the reference attribute exists on the destination resource. The only difference between this and `has_one` is that the destination attribute is not unique, and therefore will produce a list of related items. In the example above, `:tweets` corresponds to a list of `MyApp.Tweet` records.

#### Attribute Defaults

By default, the `source_attribute` is assumed to be `:id`, and `destination_attribute` defaults to `<snake_cased_last_part_of_module_name>_id`.

See the docs for more: `d:Ash.Resource.Dsl.relationships.has_many`

### Many To Many

A `many_to_many` relationship can be used to relate many source resources to many destination resources. To achieve this, the `source_attribute` and `destination_attribute` are defined on a join resource. A `many_to_many` relationship can be thought of as a combination of a `has_many` relationship on the source/destination resources and a `belongs_to` relationship on the join resource.

For example, consider two resources `MyApp.Tweet` and `MyApp.Hashtag` representing tweets and hashtags. We want to be able to associate a tweet with many hashtags, and a hashtag with many tweets. To do this, we could define the following `many_to_many` relationship:

```elixir
# on MyApp.Tweet
many_to_many :hashtags, MyApp.Hashtag do
  through MyApp.TweetHashtag
  source_attribute_on_join_resource :tweet_id
  destination_attribute_on_join_resource :hashtag_id
end
```

The `through` option specifies the "join" resource that will be used to store the relationship. We need to define this resource as well:

```elixir
defmodule MyApp.TweetHashtag do
  use Ash.Resource,
    data_layer: your_data_layer

  postgres do
    table "tweet_hashtags"
    repo MyApp.Repo
  end

  relationships do
    belongs_to :tweet, MyApp.Tweet, primary_key?: true, allow_nil?: false
    belongs_to :hashtag, MyApp.Hashtag, primary_key?: true, allow_nil?: false
  end

  actions do
    defaults [:read, :destroy, create: :*, update: :*]
  end
end
```

It is convention to name this resource `<source_resource_name><destination_resource_name>` however this is not required. The attributes on the join resource must match the `source_attribute_on_join_resource` and `destination_attribute_on_join_resource` options on the `many_to_many` relationship. The relationships on the join resource are standard `belongs_to` relationships, and can be configured as such. In this case, we have specified that the `:tweet_id` and `:hashtag_id` attributes form the primary key for the join resource, and that they cannot be `nil`.

Now that we have a resource with the proper attributes, Ash will use this automatically under the hood when
performing relationship operations like filtering and loading.

See the docs for more: `d:Ash.Resource.Dsl.relationships.many_to_many`

## Loading related data

There are two ways to load relationships:

- in the query using `Ash.Query.load/2`
- directly on records using `Ash.load/3`

### On records

Given a single record or a set of records, it is possible to load their relationships by calling the `load` function on the record's parent domain. For example:

```elixir
# user = %User{...}
Ash.load(user, :tweets)

# users = [%User{...}, %User{...}, ....]
Ash.load(users, :tweets)
```

This will fetch the tweets for each user, and set them in the corresponding `tweets` key.

```elixir
%User{
  ...
  tweets: [
    %Tweet{...},
    %Tweet{...},
    ...
  ]
}
```

See `Ash.load/3` for more information.

### In the query

The following will return a list of users with their tweets loaded identically to the previous example:

```elixir
User
|> Ash.Query.load(:tweets)
|> Ash.read()
```

At present, loading relationships in the query is fundamentally the same as loading on records. Eventually, data layers will be able to optimize these loads (potentially including them as joins in the main query).

See `Ash.Query.load/2` for more information.

### More complex data loading

Multiple relationships can be loaded at once, i.e

```elixir
Ash.load(users, [:tweets, :followers])
```

Nested relationships can be loaded:

```elixir
Ash.load(users, followers: [:tweets, :followers])
```

The queries used for loading can be customized by providing a query as the value.

```elixir
followers = Ash.Query.sort(User, follower_count: :asc)

Ash.load(users, followers: followers)
```

Nested loads will be included in the parent load.

```elixir
followers =
  User
  |> Ash.Query.sort(follower_count: :asc)
  |> Ash.Query.load(:followers)

# Will load followers and followers of those followers
Ash.load(users, followers: followers)
```

## no_attributes? true

This is really useful when creating customized relationships that aren't joined with simple attribute matches. For example:

```elixir
has_many :higher_priority_tickets, __MODULE__ do
  no_attributes? true
  # parent/1 in this case puts the expression on this current resource
  # so this is "tickets with priority higher than this ticket"
  filter expr(priority > parent(priority))
end
```

This can also be very useful when combined with multitenancy. Specifically, if you have a tenant resource like `Organization`,
you can use `no_attributes?` to do things like `has_many :employees, Employee, no_attributes?: true`, which lets you avoid having an
unnecessary `organization_id` field on `Employee`. The same works in reverse: `has_one :organization, Organization, no_attributes?: true`
allows relating the employee to their organization.


> ### Caveats for using `no_attributes?` {: .warning}
>
>  1. You can still manage relationships from one to the other, but "relate" and "unrelate" will have no effect, because there are no fields to change.
>  2. Loading the relationship on a list of resources will not behave as expected in all circumstances involving multitenancy. For example, if you get a list of `Organization` and then try to load `employees`, you would need to set a single tenant on the load query, meaning you'll get all organizations back with the set of employees from one tenant. This could eventually be solved, but for now it is considered an edge case.


## Manual Relationships

Manual relationships allow you to express complex or non-typical relationships between resources in a standard way. Individual data layers may interact with manual relationships in their own way, so see their corresponding guides. In general, you should try to use manual relationships sparingly, as you can do *a lot* with filters on relationships, and the `no_attributes?` flag.

### Example

In our Helpdesk example, we'd like to have a way to find tickets

In the `Representative` resource, define a `has_many` relationship as `manual` and point to the module where
it will be implemented.

```elixir
relationships do
  has_many :tickets_above_threshold, Helpdesk.Support.Ticket do
    manual Helpdesk.Support.Ticket.Relationships.TicketsAboveThreshold
  end
end
```

Using Ash to get the destination records is ideal, so you can authorize access like normal
but if you need to use a raw ecto query here, you can. As long as you return the right structure.

The `TicketsAboveThreshold` module is implemented as follows.

```elixir
defmodule Helpdesk.Support.Ticket.Relationships.TicketsAboveThreshold do
  use Ash.Resource.ManualRelationship
  require Ash.Query

  def load(records, _opts, %{query: query, actor: actor, authorize?: authorize?}) do
    # Use existing records to limit results
    rep_ids = Enum.map(records, & &1.id)

    {:ok,
     query
     |> Ash.Query.filter(representative_id in ^rep_ids)
     |> Ash.Query.filter(priority > representative.priority_threshold)
     |> Helpdesk.Support.read!(actor: actor, authorize?: authorize?)
     # Return the items grouped by the primary key of the source, i.e representative.id => [...tickets above threshold]
     |> Enum.group_by(& &1.representative_id)}
  end
end
```

### Reusing the Query

Since you likely want to support things like filtering your relationship when being loaded, you will want to make sure that you use the query being provided. However, depending on how you're loading the relationship, you may need to do things like fetch extra records. To do this, you might do things like

```elixir
def load(records, _opts, %{query: query, ..}) do
  # unset some fields
  fetch_query = Ash.Query.unset(query, [:limit, :offset])

  # or, to be more safe/explicit, you might make a new query, explicitly setting only a few fields
  fetch_query = query.resource |> Ash.Query.filter(^query.filter) |> Ash.Query.sort(query.sort)

  ...
end
```

### Query when loading with strict?: true

When using `Ash.Query.load` or `Ash.load` with the `strict?: true` option, the query
that is provided to the load callback might be configured with a select-statement that doesn't 
load the attributes you want to group matching results by. If your codebase utilizes the strict
loading functionality, it is therefore recommended to use `Ash.Query.ensure_selected` on the
query to ensure the required attributes are indeed fetched.

```elixir

# Here only :id & :priority is set, which will then configure the relationship query to only
# select those attributes
{:ok, rep} = Ash.load(representative, [tickets_above_threshold: [:id, :priority]], strict?: true)

defmodule Helpdesk.Support.Ticket.Relationships.TicketsAboveThreshold do
  use Ash.Resource.ManualRelationship
  require Ash.Query

  def load(records, _opts, %{query: query, actor: actor, authorize?: authorize?}) do
    rep_ids = Enum.map(records, & &1.id)

    {:ok,
     query
     # If this isn't added, representative_id would be set to %Ash.NotLoaded, causing the
     # Enum.group_by call below to fail mapping results to the correct records.
     |> Ash.Query.ensure_selected([:representative_id])
     |> Ash.Query.filter(representative_id in ^rep_ids)
     |> Ash.Query.filter(priority > representative.priority_threshold)
     |> Helpdesk.Support.read!(actor: actor, authorize?: authorize?)
     |> Enum.group_by(& &1.representative_id)}
  end
end
```

### Fetching the records and then applying a query

Lets say the records come from some totally unrelated source, or you can't just modify the query to fetch the records you need. You can fetch the records you need and then apply the query to them in memory.

```elixir
def load(records, _opts, %{query: query, ..}) do
  # fetch the data from the other source, which is capable of sorting
  data = get_other_data(data, query.sort)

  query
  # unset the sort since we already applied that
  |> Ash.Query.unset([:sort])
  # apply the query in memory (filtering, distinct, limit, offset)
  |> Ash.Query.apply_to(data)
end
```

## Managing Relationships

In Ash, managing related data is done via `Ash.Changeset.manage_relationship/4`. There are various ways to leverage the functionality expressed there. If you are working with changesets directly, you can call that function. However, if you want that logic to be portable (e.g available in `ash_graphql` mutations and `ash_json_api` actions), then you want to use the following `argument` + `change` pattern:

```elixir
actions do
  update :update do
    argument :add_comment, :map do
      allow_nil? false
    end

    argument :tags, {:array, :uuid} do
      allow_nil? false
    end

    # First argument is the name of the action argument to use
    # Second argument is the relationship to be managed
    # Third argument is options. For more, see `Ash.Changeset.manage_relationship/4`. This accepts the same options.
    change manage_relationship(:add_comment, :comments, type: :create)

    # Second argument can be omitted, as the argument name is the same as the relationship
    change manage_relationship(:tags, type: :append_and_remove)
  end
end
```

With this, those arguments can be used in action input:

```elixir
post
|> Ash.Changeset.for_update(:update, %{tags: [tag1.id, tag2.id], add_comment: %{text: "comment text"}})
|> Ash.update!()
```

### Argument Types

Notice how we provided a map as input to `add_comment`, and a list of UUIDs as an input to `manage_relationship`. When providing maps or lists of maps, you are generally just providing input that will eventually be passed into actions on the destination resource. However, you can also provide individual values or lists of values. By default, we assume that value maps to the primary key of the destination resource, but you can use the `value_is_key` option to modify that behavior. For example, if you wanted adding a comment to take a list of strings, you could say:

```elixir
argument :add_comment, :string

...
change manage_relationship(:add_comment, :comments, type: :create, value_is_key: :text)
```

And then you could use it like so:

```elixir
post
|> Ash.Changeset.for_update(:update, %{tags: [tag1.id, tag2.id], add_comment: "comment text"})
|> Ash.update!()
```

### Derived behavior

Determining what will happen when managing related data can be complicated, as the nature of the problem itself is quite complicated. In some simple cases, like `type: :create`, there may be only one action that will be called. But in order to support all of the various ways that related resources may need to be managed, Ash provides a rich set of options to determine what happens with the provided input. Tools like `AshPhoenix.Form` can look at your arguments that have a corresponding `manage_relationship` change, and derive the structure of those nested forms. Tools like `AshGraphql` can derive complex input objects to allow manipulating those relationships over a graphql Api. This all works because the options are, ultimately, quite explicit. It can be determined exactly what actions might be called, and therefore what input could be needed.

To see all of the options available, see `Ash.Changeset.manage_relationship/4`