It won’t haha, there are 10 user statuses, so the logic is like crazy
I probably close as I can’t edit the post or title, that’s sad
It would be nice if the post is editable when it’s still under 5 replies
docjazither
0
BartOtten
For pseudo code:
Get all accounts
accounts
|> Enum.group_by(&(&1.email))
|> IO.inspect(label: :groups)
|> Enum.map(fn {email, records} = group ->
IO.inspect(records, label: :do_merge)
records
|> Enum.reduce(%{}, fn
record, acc ->
something
%{acc | email: foo, other: bla}
end)
|> IO.inspect(label: :merge_result)
end)
—- at this moment we have a list of ‘unique by email’ maps —-
Remove all records from table
Insert all unique structs into table
Run migration to add constraint
0
docjazither
For during ‘merging’, I will delete everything until there is one optimised left that I want to keep. I wouldn’t be neccessarily merging them
0
BartOtten
BartOtten
sodapopcan
That makes so much more sense! But it’s been an entertaining thread 
Oddly I had maybe a similar mental blip last week. I said to my colleague: “We can use Map.delete/1 to delete the key and get the value!” to which he was like, “Uh, what?” I was like, “Crap right, we’re not in Ruby.” Of course, that is not even how Ruby’s delete works either 
We all have our moments.
1
msimonborg
msimonborg
docjazither
Yes I did, which is using head and tail pattern matching is all I need lol. And I ended up using list instead of map
3
BartOtten
Can you show us the final code snippet? Sharing the solution could help someone else in the future.
0