You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, the Chat model used to represent a chat in the service's business logic is also used to unmarshal data records. This implies that database fields have to have the same names than the ones defined in the service model.
A possible solution would be to add struct tags to the Chat model so that the records are parsed correctly. However, that would mean adding repository-specific details to a logic model. Ideally, both should be fully decoupled, even if that implies implementing parsing routines to translate between them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, the
Chat
model used to represent a chat in the service's business logic is also used to unmarshal data records. This implies that database fields have to have the same names than the ones defined in the service model.A possible solution would be to add struct tags to the
Chat
model so that the records are parsed correctly. However, that would mean adding repository-specific details to a logic model. Ideally, both should be fully decoupled, even if that implies implementing parsing routines to translate between them.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: