fix(database): add prefix to avoid join column name conflicts

[innerdvations]

What does it do?

Uses an alias for the join column name to prevent it conflicting with a column name on the main table.

Why is it needed?

If the join column name was the same as a column name in the main content type's table, it was always overwritten.

So for example, in #18085 , if we create a shirt content type with a shirt_id attribute, and then have a relation to it, the join was using shirt_id as the join column name, overwriting the shirt_id attribute of shirt.

Technically this is still the case, but it's extremely unlikely someone would have an attribute in a content type named __strapi{ct name}_id unless they were intentionally trying to encounter this issue. Regardless, In Strapi 5 it will be an officially reserved prefix.

This should be safe for long identifiers in the db, because any existing database with a join table will include an index named
{ct name}_{attribute name}_unique
Which means, given a minimum 1 char for ct name, we have len(1__unique) = 9 > len(__strapi) and should not hit any limit that isn't already being hit.

How to test it?

see #18085

Related issue(s)/PR(s)

Fixes #18085

DX-1178

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
contributor-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Apr 12, 2024 1:43pm

[innerdvations]

@pwizla This is targeting v4, and could technically be considered a breaking change although it is very unlikely to affect anyone, but we should probably document somewhere that you can't use __strapi{content type name}_id as the name of an attribute just so it's not lost and forgotten.

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
5 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
2.6% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[innerdvations]

This somehow breaks pagination in previews, investigating it now. Fixed, only had an incomplete fix in oneToMany joinTables

[christiancp100]

QAed this and works as expected!!