Few suggestions (i can try to do the PR if needed)
littleski opened this issue · 3 comments
littleski commented
- (Description) Why not writing the type for each field, as well a props (FK, nullable, Unique, etc...) ? They are in the ERD, but the ERD doesn't embed the comments. Maybe having a config field top level or a specific markup per model to choose that ?
- Is there a way, when using multiple workspaces to only have a synthetic "version" of a table in a workspace. For example, i want to clearly see the relations with the "user" table, but i don't really care of the objects related in the "User" workspace, i just want to see the relations, each other workspace, the same way, will fully document their domain, but in theses erd, the table "user" will show a synthetic version ? (Ideally, Markdown links to the right domain position would be amazing)
- Is there a way to "Group" the workspace in the table of content ? or sort them alphabetically for instance, so it's easyer to find love when you have 20+ workspaces ?
❤️
samchon commented
- It seems good suggestion
- I'm not sure what you're talking about, is your idea not expressible with the existing
@namespace
,@erd
and@describe
? - It would better to support more configurable options in the prisma schema file (
generator markdown { ... }
)
samchon commented
Welcome your PR.
littleski commented
Yeah. Haven't got many time lately, and encountered a few TS issues is the
existing code. Have priorised putting all the doc for one project to have a
good test base and be able to iterate. Found some issue in our schéma by
doing so, business first. :)
Le jeu. 8 févr. 2024 à 11:53, Jeongho Nam ***@***.***> a
écrit :
… Welcome your PR.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADSMGHL4IQ2UC4FIY5HRNQDYSSVBBAVCNFSM6AAAAABC2MQVQCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMZTHAYTSMRTHE>
.
You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID:
***@***.***>