Why can't two foreign keys refer the same primary key of a table ?

[parseshyam]

model User {
  id             Int             @default(autoincrement()) @id
 ...
 .
 .
 .
 ...
  followRequests FollowRequest[]
}

model FollowRequest {
  id        Int               @default(autoincrement()) @id
  createdAt DateTime          @default(now())
  updatedAt DateTime          @default(now())
  status    followingApproval @default(PENDING)
  userId    Int
  followId  Int
  user      User              @relation(fields: [userId, followId], references: [id])  
}

enum followingApproval {
  PENDING
  APPROVED
  REJECTED
}

@relation(fields: [userId, followId], references: [id]) throws unexpected error!
Why can't two foreign keys refers the same primary key of a table ?

[Akxe]

This is really meant for stack overflow. You solve with 2 separate @relation

model FollowRequest {
  id        Int               @default(autoincrement()) @id
  createdAt DateTime          @default(now())
  updatedAt DateTime          @default(now())
  status    followingApproval @default(PENDING)
  userId    Int
  followId  Int
  user      User              @relation(name: "name1", fields: [userId], references: [id])
  follow      User              @relation(name: "name2", fields: [followId], references: [id])
}```

[parseshyam]

Thanks for replying,
by above approach,
got following error

Error validating model "FollowRequest": Ambiguous relation detected. The fields user and follow in model FollowRequest both refer to User. Please provide different relation names for them by adding `@relation().

[Akxe]

Updated original answer

[parseshyam]

Updated original answer

Now getting following error.

Error validating model "FollowRequest": Automatic related field generation would cause a naming conflict. Please add an explicit opposite relation field.

[Akxe]

Try StackOverflow then. This is really for bug or feature request. I know this works, but I am not sure how to help, I am new to this.

[janpio]

(We can actually convert all issues to discussions here on Github, which is a bit like StackOverflow, so no harm done <3 I did that to the issue now.)

[Akxe]

Awesome! :D

[parseshyam]

model User {
  id             Int             @default(autoincrement()) @id
 ...
 .
 .
 .
 ...
  followRequests FollowRequest[]
************************** missed the following *************************

  user           FollowRequest     @relation("name1")
  follow         FollowRequest     @relation("name2")

**************************************************************************

}

model FollowRequest {
  id        Int               @default(autoincrement()) @id
  createdAt DateTime          @default(now())
  updatedAt DateTime          @default(now())
  status    followingApproval @default(PENDING)
  userId    Int
  followId  Int
  user      User               @relation(name: "name1", fields: [userId], references: [id])
  follow    User               @relation(name: "name2", fields: [followId], references: [id])}

enum followingApproval {
  PENDING
  APPROVED
  REJECTED
}

@Akxe Figured out above is the way to achieve the same.
Since prisma automatic related field generation would cause a naming conflict.
hence we need to explicit define the relation name in opposite relation field.