How to deal with auto increment id and auto-generated UUID?

[vincentcordel]

Pardon my newbie question, it's the first time I'm using Data Objects so I'm still a bit confused.

I got a Site model with:

public function uniqueIds(): array
    {
        return ['uuid'];
    }

as well as the default auto-increment id.

My SiteData

class SiteData extends Data
{
    public function __construct(
//        public int $id,
//        #[Uuid]
//        public string $uuid,
        public string $name,
        public bool $is_main,
        public bool $is_active,
        public ?Carbon $created_at = null,
        public ?Carbon $updated_at = null,
    ) {}

}

As an example, I'm trying to make a seeder with the Data object:

Site::create(
        SiteData::class::validateAndCreate([
            'name' => 'Main Site',
            'is_main' => true,
            'is_active' => true
])->toArray());

And it works.

But as you can see above, I had to uncomment the id and the uuid field on the data object.

So I'm wondering if I should create a Data object for create and another one for update.

Or if I'm doing things completely wrong and I need your advice :)

[bcorcoran]

I'm also wondering the same thing- it isn't clear (or mentioned at all really) in the docs how to handle this, and Lazy or Optional properties don't seem quite correct.

I was hoping for some kind of "ignore on create" type of functionality where I can have a single Data object for all API CRUD operations.

I feel like we're not better off (minus typescript generation which I don't use) by having to create a separate Data object for the creation request and a separate one for everything else (read, update).

I noticed in the Laracon US demonstration, Freek was using two seperate Data objects for Flare's Project feature which I can only assume was for this exact reason but he never explained it.

TL;DR: It just seems like the package is missing its own point if we're forced to create multiple DTO's for the same data just because of an auto-incrementing ID.

@freekmurze maybe you could elaborate if this is the expected pattern?

[bcorcoran]

Sorry to spam but pinging @rubenvanassche as well.