szajbus
Hi, I’m wondering if the following is a viable approach.
def followed_by?(%{followers: followers}, user) when is_list(followers) do
followers
|> Enum.any?(fn follower ->
follower.id == user.id
)
end
def followed_by?(offer, user) do
offer
|> assoc(:followers)
|> where(user_id: ^user.id)
|> Repo.exists?()
end
Depending on the context, an offer may or may not have the followers association preloaded.
Pattern matching is used to check this, so that I can avoid unneeded database query when it actually is preloaded.
My doubt is about the guard: is is_list a good approach here?
It obviously works, because %Ecto.Association.NotLoaded{} is not a list and since it’s a has_many assoctiation, it produces a list when loaded.
But how about the readability/understandability?
Where Next?
Trending in Questions
Other Trending Topics
Latest on Elixir Forum
Sponsor Spotlight
At WyeWorks, we believe great software is built by combining technical excellence with genuine human connection
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #elixirconf-us
- #ai
- #blog-post
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #api
- #forms
- #metaprogramming
- #hex
- #security
Our Sponsors
Build Elixir applications with speed and confidence.
We build reliable cloud platforms for business-critical systems.
Catch errors, track performance, monitor hosts and more.
Error tracking, logs, uptime, and Just Enough APM. Built for developers.
Elixir, Erlang & BEAM conferences from Code Sync - join us in 2026!
Practical resources that improve the lives of professional developers.
Bringing learning, work and compliance together since 1987.
**Building the future of software with AI, trust, and human connection.**
The team behind Membrane, Popcorn, LiveDebugger. Available for hire.
Courses that'll move you from confusion to "Aha, now I get it!"
Showing Posts 1 to 5- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
blatyo
I’d probably reverse it and match on
%Ecto.Association.NotLoaded{}, because it would be clearer to me.thomasbrus
There is also
Ecto.assoc_loaded?/1. But you can’t use it as a guard.Also in terms of readability
def followed_by?(%Offer{followers: .. }is a bit easer to follow I think.thomasbrus
Another thing to think about.. I think the first function knows a bit too much.
It reaches into the
%Offer{}which happens to have followers preloaded, and thats why it works. Imagine%Offer{}had other associations that may or may not be preloaded but are needed byfollowed_by?. Then the pattern matching would have to take into account all these different scenarios.Perhaps you can accomplish this in a different way (while still efficient). Let’s say you have a show page on which you show 1 offer. Then you can simply use the
followed_by?(offer, user)you already have (2nd function).But then perhaps there’s an index page with a list of offers which preloads
followers(I assume). In that case I would perform an additional query:offers_followed_by_user(user). It can just return the ids of the offers for example. Then it is straightforward and efficient to check if a certain offer on the index page is followed by the user (offer.id in offers_followed_by_user).szajbus
I like this.
In fact, I went for a walk right after posting this question and returned home with exactly same idea in mind. I guess time away from keyboard pays off
It is more direct than using
is_list, which seemed a bit too clever.Although it seems to be reaching a bit too deep into Ecto’s internals, I think it’s safe - any breaking change in Ecto in this regard, would be most likely caught at compile-time (undefined struct).
szajbus
Yes, it’s another approach I consider. However, I think using pattern matching here, would be more concise and readable in this simple scenario.