Add 'unique' to model schema - new feature that checks unique constraints when saving/publishing #135

hyunnbunt · 2025-02-24T12:47:26Z

[Unique constraints]
A field can be set to have unique constraint.
When saving an entry's draft data, the unique constraint violation is checked (an endpoint is added)
Upon a publish request, the unique constraint violation is checked for all unique fields. (publish endpoint handles this)

[Details]
The unique constraint only applies to the published entries. It does not affect to draft data of an entry. During auto-saving, the violation status of the most recent values entered by the user in the unique fields are checked. If a violation occurs, a message indicating that publishing is not possible is displayed in the input box, and the publish button is disabled. But Saving is not interrupted.
When a publish request is received, the server checks for violations of all unique fields in the requested entry. If a violation occurs, an error is returned, including a list of the violated fields in the error message. The client uses this information to display a message in the input box indicating that publishing is not possible for the violated fields and disables the publish button.

vercel · 2025-02-24T12:47:38Z

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
plasmic-cms-i18n	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Mar 13, 2025 6:55am

1 Skipped Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
react-email-demo	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)			Mar 13, 2025 6:55am

vercel · 2025-02-24T12:47:40Z

@hyunnbunt is attempting to deploy a commit to the Plasmic Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

jaslong

Only reviewed the backend for now, will review frontend later

jaslong · 2025-02-25T09:23:46Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

@@ -7303,11 +7367,9 @@ export class DbMgr implements MigrationDbMgr {
        })
      : undefined;

-    await this.entMgr.save(
+    return await this.entMgr.save(


What does save return here? It seems to be a different from previously, when it was just row.

jaslong · 2025-02-25T09:27:07Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

+  async getPublishedRows(tableId: CmsTableId) {
+    const publishedRows = await this.entMgr.find(CmsRow, {
+      tableId: tableId,
+      draftData: null,


Can't a published row also have draft data?

Oh, I misunderstood that modifying a published entry would immediately cancel the published status. So, when users modify the entry and request to publish it again, the previous data is overwritten! Got it and fixed it!

jaslong · 2025-02-25T09:29:48Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/AppServer.ts

@@ -828,6 +829,7 @@ export function addCmsEditorRoutes(app: express.Application) {
  app.put("/api/v1/cmse/rows/:rowId", withNext(updateRow));
  app.delete("/api/v1/cmse/rows/:rowId", withNext(deleteRow));
  app.post("/api/v1/cmse/rows/:rowId/clone", withNext(cloneRow));
+  app.post("/api/v1/cmse/rows/:rowId/uniqueness", withNext(checkUniqueness));


Let's call it /check-unique-fields

jaslong · 2025-02-25T09:35:14Z

platform/wab/src/wab/shared/SharedApi.ts

@@ -1745,6 +1745,13 @@ export abstract class SharedApi {
    return (await this.post(`/cmse/rows/${rowId}/clone`, opts)) as ApiCmseRow;
  }

+  async checkUnique(
+    rowId: CmsRowId,
+    opts: { uniqueChangedFields: Dict<unknown> }


The naming for uniqueChangedFields is specific to the current use case (keyword being "changed"). Also, "fields" is usually used to refer to the schema. I think it's ok to call this data on the server, to be consistent with for example the publish API.

Thank you for explaining it in detail! I've fixed it!

jaslong · 2025-02-25T09:38:10Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/routes/cmse.ts

@@ -289,6 +289,17 @@ export async function cloneRow(req: Request, res: Response) {
  res.json(clonedRow);
 }

+export async function checkUniqueness(req: Request, res: Response) {
+  const mgr = userDbMgr(req);
+  const row = await mgr.getCmsRowById(req.params.rowId as CmsRowId);


Why is row being fetched, but then only the id is being used later?

This should be removed. The client can pass both tableId and rowId.

jaslong · 2025-02-25T09:42:30Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

+        },
+      });
+    }
+    const violated: string[] = [];


Can we return something better than just the field identifier? How about data like:

interface UniqueFieldCheck { /** Identifier of schema field. */ fieldIdentifier: string; /** The value that had a violation. */ value: unknown; /** If there are no conflicts. */ ok: boolean; /** Identifiers of rows that conflicted. */ conflictRowIds: string[]; }

Got it! Is it okay to add this interface to the same file(DbMgr.ts)?

Maybe you can change this function to getConflictingCmsRows(data: { [fieldId]: unknown }) that returns CmsRow[]. Then in the routes file you can convert it to UniqueFieldCheck which should live in ApiSchema.

jaslong · 2025-02-25T09:49:29Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

+          publishedRow.data &&
+          String(Object.values(publishedRow.data)[0][identifier] ?? "") ===
+            String(value ?? "")
+        ) {


Can you explain the above lines? I don't understand:

What Object.values(publishedRow.data)[0][identifier] ?? "" evaluates to.

Why everything is being converted to a string before checking for equality.

It might help to break up this if into multiple if statements and use more variables.

Handles locales? Nah, can either be localized or unique, not both.

Should use some sort of deep equality check (look at lodash.equals).

Handle empty data during comparison. Make a normalizeData function to handle these kind of weird cases, then in the future we can apply this function to the rest of the code to make sure data integrity.

jaslong · 2025-02-25T09:55:39Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

+    Object.entries(fields).forEach(([identifier, value]) => {
+      for (const publishedRow of publishedRows) {


Slightly weird to use both foreach and for loop in the same function. It would be better to stick with one style. Generally we try to be functional, so I think it would be best to do something like:

return Object.entries(fields) .map(([identifier, value], () => { const conflictRowIds = publishedRows .filter(row => /* whether row conflicts with value */); if (conflictRowIds.length > 0) { return { identifier, value, conflictRowIds } } });

jaslong · 2025-02-26T02:04:30Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsInputs.tsx

+  type FieldStatus = "success" | "warning" | "error" | "validating" | undefined;
+  const [fieldStatus, setFieldStatus] = React.useState<FieldStatus>("success");
+  const [helperText, setHelperText] = React.useState(" ");
  const commonRules = [


Try to get rid of these states and use the rules framework. Here's the docs: https://ant.design/components/form#rule

jaslong · 2025-02-26T02:07:49Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsModelDetails.tsx

+      {![CmsMetaType.LIST, CmsMetaType.OBJECT].includes(selectedType) && (
+        <Form.Item label={"Unique"} name={[...fieldPath, "unique"]} required>
+          <ValueSwitch />
+        </Form.Item>


What happens if you check the unique switch, then change the type to a list or object?

Similar for localized in the future.

jaslong · 2025-02-26T02:18:57Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+        .filter((field) => field.unique)
+        .map((field) => field.identifier)
+    );
+  }, []);


uniqueFields = table.schema.fields .filter((field) => field.unique) .map((field) => field.identifier)

OR

const uniqueFields = useMemo(() => { return table.schema.fields .filter((field) => field.unique) .map((field) => field.identifier) }, [table]);

jaslong · 2025-02-26T02:24:13Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

          if (Object.keys(changedValues).length > 0) {
            setHasUnsavedChanges(hasChanges());
            setHasUnpublishedChanges(hasPublishableChanges());
            console.log({ changedFields: changedValues, allFields: allValues });
+            const changedField = Object.values(changedValues)[0];


Can't assume there is only 1 element in the changed values

jaslong · 2025-02-26T02:34:03Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+                        } catch (err) {
+                          setPublishing(false);
+                          console.log(err);
+                          if (err.statusCode === 400) {


Use 409

The HTTP 409 Conflict status code indicates that a request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the target resource, often occurring during operations like file uploads or updates. This error typically requires resolving the conflict before the request can be successfully processed.

jaslong · 2025-02-26T02:38:23Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+                          setPublishing(false);
+                          console.log(err);
+                          if (err.statusCode === 400) {
+                            setNotVaildUniqueFields(JSON.parse(err.message));


Before assuming that the error is about uniqueness, you need a way to guarantee that it is a uniqueness issue, because we might have other kinds of errors, such as auth error, etc.

Make a new error type in ApiSchema.

export type UniqueViolationError = { type: "unique-violation", violations: UniqueViolation[], } // this is called a typeguard export function isUniqueViolationError(err: unknown): err is UniqueViolationError { return typeof err === "object" && err && err.type === "unique-violation" } catch (err) { if (isUniqueViolationError(err)) { setViolations(...) } else { throw err; }

I made the backend throw this UniqueViolationError type object, but on client side, the error is always UnknownApiErrors. And I found this comment in api.ts :
// The error was JSON-parsible, but not one of the known
// ApiErrors. So it is now just a JSON object, not an Error.
// We create an UnknownApiError for it instead.
Should I define a new error class extending ApiErrors, as AuthError is defined (in shared/ApiErrors/errors.ts)?

You need to update transformErrors to covert it from the generic error to your new error type. It's because when data is sent from server to client, the type information is lost. So you transformErrors will manually convert it back to the correct type.

jaslong · 2025-02-26T02:42:45Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

  async function performSave() {
    const { identifier, ...draftData } = form.getFieldsValue();
    try {
      setSaving(true);
+      if (isUniqueFieldChanged()) {
+        await checkUniqueness();


I don't think checkUniqueness should be in performSave. Rather, you should implement checkUniqueness as a parallel process.

jaslong · 2025-02-26T02:43:24Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+      ]);
+      setUniqueChangedFields({});
+    } catch (err) {
+      console.log(err);


Remove try/catch before merging

jaslong · 2025-02-26T02:54:37Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+  async function checkUniqueness() {
+    try {
+      const opts = { uniqueChangedFields: uniqueChangedFields };
+      const checkedNotValid = await api.checkUnique(row.id, opts);


Change return type of checkUnique to make this simpler.

notValidUniqueFields = { a: UniqueFieldCheck, b: UniqueFieldCheck } checkedNotValid = await api.checkUnique(...) // { b: true, c: false } Object.entries(checkedNotValid).forEach(([identifier, check]) => { if (check.ok) { notValidUniqueFields.remove(identifier); } else { notValidUniqueFields.set(identifier, check); } });

jaslong · 2025-02-26T03:11:08Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+      setNotVaildUniqueFields([
+        ...new Set([...checkedValidRemoved, ...checkedNotValid]),
+      ]);
+      setUniqueChangedFields({});


setState(prev => { return { ...prev, newStuff } }) // type { "uniqueField": "a" } // start request unique check for { "uniqueField": "a" } // type { "uniqueField": "ab" } // finish request unique check for { "uniqueField": "a" } <- this should be ignored // start request unique check for { "uniqueField": "ab" }' type UniqueFieldStatus { value: string status: "not started" | "pending" | "ok" | "violation" conflictEntryIds: string[] } // { // foo: { value: "abc", status: "not started" } // } const [uniqueFieldStatus, setUniqueFieldStatus] = setState<{ [fieldId: string]: UniqueFieldStatus>({}); ... onValuesChanged(values) { setUniqueFieldStatuses(prevStatuses => { const copy = { ...prevStatuses }; values.forEach(([fieldId, value]) => { if (copy[fieldId].value === value) { // do nothing, because we already have the same value } else { copy[fieldId] = value; } }) return copy; }); } checkUniqueness() { const checkedNotValid = await api.checkUnique(row.id, opts); setUniqueFieldStatus(prevStatus => { // left as reader's exercise }); }

jaslong

backend review first!

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:05:07Z

platform/wab/src/wab/shared/ApiErrors/cms-errors.ts

+  name = "unique-violation";
+  statusCode = 409;
+  violations: UniqueFieldCheck[];
+  constructor(violations: UniqueFieldCheck[]) {


There is a shorthand for the following code:

readonly violations: UniqueFieldCheck[] constructor(violations: UniqueFieldCheck[]) { this.violations = violations }

can be shortened to

constructor(public readonly violations: UniqueFieldCheck[]) {}

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:05:29Z

platform/wab/src/wab/shared/ApiErrors/cms-errors.ts

+  name = "unique-violation";
+  statusCode = 409;
+  violations: UniqueFieldCheck[];


These fields should be readonly unless you expect them to be changed

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:06:51Z

platform/wab/src/wab/shared/ApiSchema.ts

+  value: unknown;
+  /** If there are no conflicts. */
+  ok: boolean;
+  conflictRowIds: string[];


Use the type CmsRowId instead of string for a bit better type safety and clarity.

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:10:30Z

platform/wab/src/wab/shared/SharedApi.ts

@@ -1710,6 +1710,10 @@ export abstract class SharedApi {
    return (await this.post(`/cmse/rows/${rowId}/clone`, opts)) as ApiCmseRow;
  }

+  async checkUnique(rowId: CmsRowId, opts: { data: Dict<unknown> }) {
+    return await this.post(`cmse/rows/${rowId}/check-unique-fields`, opts);


I think it may make more sense to make this a table operation, like cmse/tables${tableId}, since it involves the whole table. You'll still want to pass in the rowId in opts though.

I was curious about this part, thanks!

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:11:26Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/routes/cmse.ts

@@ -289,6 +289,17 @@ export async function cloneRow(req: Request, res: Response) {
  res.json(clonedRow);
 }

+export async function checkUniqueness(req: Request, res: Response) {
+  const mgr = userDbMgr(req);
+  const row = await mgr.getCmsRowById(req.params.rowId as CmsRowId);


This should be removed. The client can pass both tableId and rowId.

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:47:09Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

+      .filter((field) => !field.hidden && field.unique)
+      .map((field) => field.identifier);
+    if (uniqueIdentifiers.length === 0) {
+      return;


I think checkUniqueData always returns array? It might be better to return an empty array here for consistency. Then you can set the return type of this function to Promise<UniqueFieldCheck[]>.

BTW as a good rule of thumb, always prefer explicit return types. It makes it faster for future readers to understand the function purpose much faster.

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:55:18Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

@@ -7262,6 +7343,30 @@ export class DbMgr implements MigrationDbMgr {
      );
    };

+    if ("data" in opts && "draftData" in opts && opts.data && !opts.draftData) {


I think this can simply be moved in the if ("data" in opts) block below. Also, I think it's safer to use the data after the mergedData call.

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:56:22Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

+        opts.data
+      );
+      if (!uniqueFields) {
+        console.log("There're no unique constraints in this table");


You can remove the !uniqueFields check and console.log after you stop returning undefined

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:58:58Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

+            message: "unique violations",
+            statusCode: 409,
+          };
+          throw uniqueViolationError;


This should be throw new UniqueViolationError(uniqueFields)

jaslong · 2025-03-12T07:59:30Z

platform/wab/src/wab/server/db/DbMgr.ts

+        const violationFields = uniqueFields.filter(
+          (uniqueField) => !uniqueField.ok
+        );
+        if (violationFields.length > 0) {


Could be simplified to uniqueFields.some(field => !field.ok)

jaslong

frontend time :)

jaslong · 2025-03-13T07:56:49Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsInputs.tsx

+      validator: (_, value) => {
+        if (props.uniqueViolation) {
+          return Promise.reject(
+            "This field should have unique data to publish entry"


Can we link to the conflicting rows somehow?

jaslong · 2025-03-13T07:58:34Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+                  uniqueFieldStatus[field.identifier] &&
+                  uniqueFieldStatus[field.identifier].status === "violation",


Simplify to uniqueFieldStatus[field.identifier]?.status === "violation"

jaslong · 2025-03-13T07:59:41Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

@@ -175,6 +187,7 @@ function CmsEntryDetailsForm_(

  const [isSaving, setSaving] = React.useState(false);
  const [isPublishing, setPublishing] = React.useState(false);
+  const [isCheckingUniqueness, setCheckingUniqueness] = React.useState(false);


I think this state can be removed since it can be computed based on uniqueFieldStatus: Object.values(uniqueFieldStatus).some(field => field.status === "pending"). It should be similar to isUniqueFieldUpdated and isUniqueViolationField!

jaslong · 2025-03-13T08:03:38Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+  const isUniqueFieldUpdated = () => {
+    return (
+      Object.values(uniqueFieldStatus).filter(
+        (uniqueStatus) => uniqueStatus.status === "not started"
+      ).length > 0
+    );
+  };
+
+  const hasUniqueViolationField = () => {
+    return (
+      Object.values(uniqueFieldStatus).filter(
+        (fieldStatus) => fieldStatus.status === "violation"
+      ).length > 0
+    );
+  };


These shouldn't be functions since they are always evaluated anyway, and if it's a function and you use it twice, they'll be evaluated twice too. Change these to simple const isUniqueFieldUpdated = Object.values(...)....

Or put them into a useMemo to guarantee they are only recomputed when necessary.

Also, I would move these computations next to uniqueFieldStatus since they are so directly related (or maybe move the uniqueFieldStatus down to here).

jaslong · 2025-03-13T08:05:23Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

@@ -293,6 +326,72 @@ function CmsEntryDetailsForm_(
    setInConflict(true);
  };

+  function getDefaultLocale(data: Dict<Dict<unknown>>) {


This is generally useful, and also used on the server. Can you move it to a file like src/wab/shared/cms.ts? The CmsLocaleRowData type we talked about would probably also go there!

jaslong · 2025-03-13T08:09:46Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+  function initializeUniqueStatus() {
+    const uniqueStatus = {};
+    if (row.draftData) {
+      const uniqueEntries = getUniqueEntries(getDefaultLocale(row.draftData));


Since unique fields should only work on default locale, maybe you can change getUniqueEntries to accept row.draftData then getDefaultLocale inside the function. That way it's impossible to accidentally pass in a non-default locale data into getUniqueEntries.

jaslong · 2025-03-13T08:10:24Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+      uniqueEntries.forEach(([identifier, value]) => {
+        uniqueStatus[identifier] = {
+          value: value,
+          status: "not started",


Should we also check if the data equals the published data? If they are equal, then the status should be "ok".

jaslong · 2025-03-13T08:16:31Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+      If the user updates the field value before the response,
+      the status would changed to "not started", and the previous response is ignored. */
+    setUniqueFieldStatus((prev) => {
+      const copy = { ...prev };


Unfortunately this is only a "shallow copy:"

const b = {} const prev = { a: b } const copy = { ...prev } prev.a === copy.a // this is true

This means we are actually mutating the original data on line 368. This is bad in React and could lead to the component not updating properly. To resolve this, you need to copy the entire fieldStatus object too:

copy[fieldIdentifier] = { ...copy[fieldIdentifier], status: "pending" }

jaslong · 2025-03-13T08:22:56Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+      const copy = { ...prev };
+      uniqueFieldsChecked.forEach((uniqueCheck) => {
+        const identifier = uniqueCheck.fieldIdentifier;
+        if (copy[identifier].status === "pending") {


I'm not sure checking that status === "pending" matters. The more important thing to check is that the field value still matches. Otherwise, maybe you run a check for "a", but then the user changes the field to "b". Then, the check for "a" finishes, and you accidentally mark "b" as "ok".

Oh, I thought when a user changes the field to "b" while running a check for "a", the status of the field is changed from "pending" to "not started", because 'onValuesChange' of the Form changes the field status to "not started".
I wanted to design it in this way :
The status of the field is "pending" at first, before the check. While the field is being checked, if the user changes the field, the field status is now "not started". After the response came, I check the status if it's still "pending", to ignore "not started" (updated) field.

Is it more accurate to directly compare whether the field value is the same?

Yes, consider this sequence:

a: not started

a: pending

b: not started

b: pending

a: ok

b: network error

Now the field is "b" while the value is "ok"

jaslong · 2025-03-13T08:28:25Z

platform/wab/src/wab/client/components/cms/CmsEntryDetails.tsx

+                            }
+                          }
+                        } catch (err) {
+                          setPublishing(false);


Almost perfect try/catch. Nice!

One little thing is to move the setPublishing(false) to a finally block. Finally is always executed, no matter if the try or catch code is run. Put code there that should always happen no matter what.

try { ... } catch { ... } finally { setPublshing(false); }

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n February 24, 2025 12:48 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n February 25, 2025 05:40 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n February 25, 2025 07:19 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n February 25, 2025 07:38 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n February 25, 2025 07:44 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n February 25, 2025 07:51 View deployment

jaslong reviewed Feb 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

jaslong reviewed Feb 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

hyunnbunt added 6 commits March 7, 2025 18:32

rebase - branch for uniqueness-check

4281456

warning message works

c65a0c1

publish button disabled, some function separated

d6fc528

.

94f2d5b

.

b11b6b6

removed log

16c87db

hyunnbunt force-pushed the addUniqueToModelSchema branch from 8c7af54 to 16c87db Compare March 11, 2025 15:53

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n March 11, 2025 15:54 View deployment

removed unused err

a74c868

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n March 12, 2025 00:48 View deployment

revert unintended changes

7ab0716

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n March 12, 2025 01:07 View deployment

-

be7c73b

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n March 12, 2025 01:12 View deployment

hyunnbunt added 2 commits March 12, 2025 10:25

undefined to empty string

a9928d2

-

0447ac1

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n March 12, 2025 01:27 View deployment

add comment, checkUniqueness

19d1cff

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n March 12, 2025 01:53 View deployment

jaslong reviewed Mar 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

backend code changes after code review

ce2a225

vercel bot deployed to Preview – plasmic-cms-i18n March 13, 2025 06:55 View deployment

jaslong reviewed Mar 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

		Object.entries(fields).forEach(([identifier, value]) => {
		for (const publishedRow of publishedRows) {

		uniqueFieldStatus[field.identifier] &&
		uniqueFieldStatus[field.identifier].status === "violation",

Add 'unique' to model schema - new feature that checks unique constraints when saving/publishing #135

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add 'unique' to model schema - new feature that checks unique constraints when saving/publishing #135

Conversation

hyunnbunt commented Feb 24, 2025

vercel bot commented Feb 24, 2025 • edited Loading

vercel bot commented Feb 24, 2025

jaslong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jaslong Feb 25, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jaslong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jaslong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vercel bot commented Feb 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jaslong Feb 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading