Eric asked
trying to setup a conventional one to many relationship between two tables, in the linkToAnotherRecord ui i see only
o1lab replied
well conceptually, but it also bakes in exclusivity from the perspective of the parent.
e.g. if i define one to many in the current interface, if i assign a link value from the parent, it removes that from other peers. so not sure if it’s just a bug/quirk in the current implementation.
A Device can have many current_cal, but a current_cal can only have one Device. In the current_cal table there should be a column for Devices_id which only holds an integer ID. So if you assign “this is a yaml 1” to Device ID 2, it will no longer be assigned to Device ID 1. So it seems like it’s working as expected, or do you want many-to-many, or did you want one-to-many in the opposite direction?
The desire is to have a conventional foreign key, in the context desribed here, yes running in the opposite direction… a foreign key from one table to another would not generally impart or enforce any exclusivity (across) the members of the parent table.