Do you organize/separate your Ecto Schemas?

How about using plural for the context? So you’d have:

lib
  - accounts
    - account.ex
    - user.ex
  - accounts.ex

I usually always start with lib/<app>/schema/ and only move to smaller and more contained directories as the app starts to grow.

I don’t think there is an ultimate answer, but I tend to start out simple and expand as needed.

For example, I might start out with…

lib
  - inventory
    - property.ex - schema
  - inventory.ex - context

You’re just talking about schemas here, but as more concepts get added, eventually the high-level including schemas might be…

lib
  - inventory
    - properties.ex - sub-context with property crud and such
    - property.ex - schema
    - units.ex - sub-context with unit crud and such
    - unit.ex - schema
  - inventory.ex - context that delegates to functions in `properties.ex` and `units.ex`

Some apps will even break out a separate context/app that is only concerned with data persistence and then interact with that from the other business domain contexts. In those cases, I’d tend to break into /lib/<app>/schema, /lib/<app>/queries, etc. since it is a pure data layer.

I’ve done the analysis paralysis thing when it comes to this topic and it rarely seems worth it though. There is a decent chance that whatever organization that makes sense today might need to evolve in the future. I think that is okay. Elixir tends to make renames and restructuring fairly painless.

I’ve used this on several large phoenix projects and it’s always worked well. It’s easy browse the directory structure and also easy to find the right file when fuzzy searching in an editor.