Feat: Query gen 2(.1)

[Meldiron]

Previous PR: #153

TODO after this PR:

• Remove parameters from find() (such as limit, offset, order, cursor, ...) and get it from $queries instead
• Upgrade Appwrite to new method signatures
• Implement new queries into Appwrite Database service
• Update Appwrite list endpoints so they all allow queries

[eldadfux]

The new signature API for the class feels a bit like a patch, why did we move away from the original signature? I think we could have improved it, but this is a step back.

[Meldiron]

We removed operator. In equals('name', 'Matej') all is good, but in a query like limit(5) we don't have an operator.

attribute was also removed, since that is also not present in limit(5).

We added method which replaced attribute in the placement of the query. A method is for example equals, limit, or offset.

---

I can see what you mean with a step back. I was thinking about implementing separate interfaces(classes?) for each method. That would give you more high-level of building a query. Would that make sense?

[eldadfux]

The API of the class feels very oriented towards the technical implementation instead of telling the story of the use case for this class and method. I think, getAttribute, getMethod, and getValues would make much more sense and be more intuitive when reading the code.

We could have also introduce static builder methods for this class that would make the API closer to what we have in our Appwrite SDK (not meaning they should be coupled, but they just feel more convenient). For example:

Query::equal(string $attribute, array $values):self;

[Meldiron]

I wanted to avoid calling it getMethod since you can still call it on limit(5) and there you would get 5 as method. Tho, I am opened for suggestions. Should I rename them to original methods?

We can introduce it, yes. That's what I though about in this comment: #157 (comment)

I can see what you mean with a step back. I was thinking about implementing separate interfaces(classes?) for each method. That would give you more high-level of building a query. Would that make sense?

If you give me green, I can go ahead and implement it as static method. (as you suggested in this comment)

[eldadfux]

I think that with the builder/factory static methods in place we could just set attribute to null, and have proper access methods in place.

[TorstenDittmann]

We might want to have multiple Query Classes, since they are really hard to mix in combination with Validators.

• The Equal query has stuff like attribute and values (any data type)
• The Limit query has only a single value which is int
• The Offset query has only a single value which is int
• The Order Query has only a single values which are string (maybe even multiple values if we don't want the user to pass multiple orders in the same Query)
• ...

I am not sure if we can get an interface that makes sense for all. So what about a Base class, extending it for necessary Queries. Otherwise we will have so many conditions for validating everything scattered around the one class for Query and Validator.

[stnguyen90]

query parsing LGTM