📝 Fix ambiguous phrasing regarding HeroPublicWithTeam model

[berkaykrc]

Description

I noticed a sentence in the Models with Relationships section that was slightly ambiguous and caused confusion about which model was being described.

In the paragraph discussing recursion, the text says:

"Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."

Because the sentence omits the subject (the HeroPublicWithTeam class), it reads as if the text is describing a field inside TeamPublicWithHeroes, rather than explaining how the team field is typed inside the Hero model.

Changes

I have updated the text to explicitly state that we are looking at the HeroPublicWithTeam model.

Example of clarification:

Before: "Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."
After: "Also, notice that in the HeroPublicWithTeam model, the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes class..."

This small change reduces cognitive load and prevents readers from looking for a logic error in TeamPublicWithHeroes.

[github-actions]

📝 Docs preview

Last commit 33f02a1 at: https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev

Modified Pages

• https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev/tutorial/fastapi/relationships/ - (before)

[YuriiMotov]

@berkaykrc, thanks!

I agree this way it reads a bit easier.

We can also update the paragraph above:

- Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because these are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.+ Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because `HeroPublicWithTeam` and `TeamPublicWithHeroes` are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.

("these" replaced with explicit "HeroPublicWithTeam and TeamPublicWithHeroes")

[svlandeg]

Thanks @berkaykrc! I also applied @YuriiMotov's suggestion, to make both these paragraphs crystal clear 🎉

[berkaykrc]

Description

I noticed a sentence in the Models with Relationships section that was slightly ambiguous and caused confusion about which model was being described.

In the paragraph discussing recursion, the text says:

"Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."

Because the sentence omits the subject (the HeroPublicWithTeam class), it reads as if the text is describing a field inside TeamPublicWithHeroes, rather than explaining how the team field is typed inside the Hero model.

Changes

I have updated the text to explicitly state that we are looking at the HeroPublicWithTeam model.

Example of clarification:

Before: "Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."
After: "Also, notice that in the HeroPublicWithTeam model, the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes class..."

This small change reduces cognitive load and prevents readers from looking for a logic error in TeamPublicWithHeroes.

[github-actions]

📝 Docs preview

Last commit 33f02a1 at: https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev

Modified Pages

• https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev/tutorial/fastapi/relationships/ - (before)

[YuriiMotov]

@berkaykrc, thanks!

I agree this way it reads a bit easier.

We can also update the paragraph above:

- Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because these are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.+ Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because `HeroPublicWithTeam` and `TeamPublicWithHeroes` are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.

("these" replaced with explicit "HeroPublicWithTeam and TeamPublicWithHeroes")

[svlandeg]

Thanks @berkaykrc! I also applied @YuriiMotov's suggestion, to make both these paragraphs crystal clear 🎉

[berkaykrc]

Description

I noticed a sentence in the Models with Relationships section that was slightly ambiguous and caused confusion about which model was being described.

In the paragraph discussing recursion, the text says:

"Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."

Because the sentence omits the subject (the HeroPublicWithTeam class), it reads as if the text is describing a field inside TeamPublicWithHeroes, rather than explaining how the team field is typed inside the Hero model.

Changes

I have updated the text to explicitly state that we are looking at the HeroPublicWithTeam model.

Example of clarification:

Before: "Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."
After: "Also, notice that in the HeroPublicWithTeam model, the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes class..."

This small change reduces cognitive load and prevents readers from looking for a logic error in TeamPublicWithHeroes.

[github-actions]

📝 Docs preview

Last commit 33f02a1 at: https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev

Modified Pages

• https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev/tutorial/fastapi/relationships/ - (before)

[YuriiMotov]

@berkaykrc, thanks!

I agree this way it reads a bit easier.

We can also update the paragraph above:

- Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because these are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.+ Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because `HeroPublicWithTeam` and `TeamPublicWithHeroes` are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.

("these" replaced with explicit "HeroPublicWithTeam and TeamPublicWithHeroes")

[svlandeg]

Thanks @berkaykrc! I also applied @YuriiMotov's suggestion, to make both these paragraphs crystal clear 🎉

[berkaykrc]

Description

I noticed a sentence in the Models with Relationships section that was slightly ambiguous and caused confusion about which model was being described.

In the paragraph discussing recursion, the text says:

"Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."

Because the sentence omits the subject (the HeroPublicWithTeam class), it reads as if the text is describing a field inside TeamPublicWithHeroes, rather than explaining how the team field is typed inside the Hero model.

Changes

I have updated the text to explicitly state that we are looking at the HeroPublicWithTeam model.

Example of clarification:

Before: "Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."
After: "Also, notice that in the HeroPublicWithTeam model, the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes class..."

This small change reduces cognitive load and prevents readers from looking for a logic error in TeamPublicWithHeroes.

[github-actions]

📝 Docs preview

Last commit 33f02a1 at: https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev

Modified Pages

• https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev/tutorial/fastapi/relationships/ - (before)

[YuriiMotov]

@berkaykrc, thanks!

I agree this way it reads a bit easier.

We can also update the paragraph above:

- Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because these are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.+ Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because `HeroPublicWithTeam` and `TeamPublicWithHeroes` are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.

("these" replaced with explicit "HeroPublicWithTeam and TeamPublicWithHeroes")

[svlandeg]

Thanks @berkaykrc! I also applied @YuriiMotov's suggestion, to make both these paragraphs crystal clear 🎉

[berkaykrc]

Description

I noticed a sentence in the Models with Relationships section that was slightly ambiguous and caused confusion about which model was being described.

In the paragraph discussing recursion, the text says:

"Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."

Because the sentence omits the subject (the HeroPublicWithTeam class), it reads as if the text is describing a field inside TeamPublicWithHeroes, rather than explaining how the team field is typed inside the Hero model.

Changes

I have updated the text to explicitly state that we are looking at the HeroPublicWithTeam model.

Example of clarification:

Before: "Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."
After: "Also, notice that in the HeroPublicWithTeam model, the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes class..."

This small change reduces cognitive load and prevents readers from looking for a logic error in TeamPublicWithHeroes.

[github-actions]

📝 Docs preview

Last commit 33f02a1 at: https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev

Modified Pages

• https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev/tutorial/fastapi/relationships/ - (before)

[YuriiMotov]

@berkaykrc, thanks!

I agree this way it reads a bit easier.

We can also update the paragraph above:

- Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because these are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.+ Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because `HeroPublicWithTeam` and `TeamPublicWithHeroes` are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.

("these" replaced with explicit "HeroPublicWithTeam and TeamPublicWithHeroes")

[svlandeg]

Thanks @berkaykrc! I also applied @YuriiMotov's suggestion, to make both these paragraphs crystal clear 🎉

[berkaykrc]

Description

I noticed a sentence in the Models with Relationships section that was slightly ambiguous and caused confusion about which model was being described.

In the paragraph discussing recursion, the text says:

"Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."

Because the sentence omits the subject (the HeroPublicWithTeam class), it reads as if the text is describing a field inside TeamPublicWithHeroes, rather than explaining how the team field is typed inside the Hero model.

Changes

I have updated the text to explicitly state that we are looking at the HeroPublicWithTeam model.

Example of clarification:

Before: "Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."
After: "Also, notice that in the HeroPublicWithTeam model, the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes class..."

This small change reduces cognitive load and prevents readers from looking for a logic error in TeamPublicWithHeroes.

[github-actions]

📝 Docs preview

Last commit 33f02a1 at: https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev

Modified Pages

• https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev/tutorial/fastapi/relationships/ - (before)

[YuriiMotov]

@berkaykrc, thanks!

I agree this way it reads a bit easier.

We can also update the paragraph above:

- Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because these are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.+ Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because `HeroPublicWithTeam` and `TeamPublicWithHeroes` are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.

("these" replaced with explicit "HeroPublicWithTeam and TeamPublicWithHeroes")

[svlandeg]

Thanks @berkaykrc! I also applied @YuriiMotov's suggestion, to make both these paragraphs crystal clear 🎉

[berkaykrc]

Description

I noticed a sentence in the Models with Relationships section that was slightly ambiguous and caused confusion about which model was being described.

In the paragraph discussing recursion, the text says:

"Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."

Because the sentence omits the subject (the HeroPublicWithTeam class), it reads as if the text is describing a field inside TeamPublicWithHeroes, rather than explaining how the team field is typed inside the Hero model.

Changes

I have updated the text to explicitly state that we are looking at the HeroPublicWithTeam model.

Example of clarification:

Before: "Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."
After: "Also, notice that in the HeroPublicWithTeam model, the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes class..."

This small change reduces cognitive load and prevents readers from looking for a logic error in TeamPublicWithHeroes.

[github-actions]

📝 Docs preview

Last commit 33f02a1 at: https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev

Modified Pages

• https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev/tutorial/fastapi/relationships/ - (before)

[YuriiMotov]

@berkaykrc, thanks!

I agree this way it reads a bit easier.

We can also update the paragraph above:

- Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because these are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.+ Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because `HeroPublicWithTeam` and `TeamPublicWithHeroes` are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.

("these" replaced with explicit "HeroPublicWithTeam and TeamPublicWithHeroes")

[svlandeg]

Thanks @berkaykrc! I also applied @YuriiMotov's suggestion, to make both these paragraphs crystal clear 🎉

[berkaykrc]

Description

I noticed a sentence in the Models with Relationships section that was slightly ambiguous and caused confusion about which model was being described.

In the paragraph discussing recursion, the text says:

"Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."

Because the sentence omits the subject (the HeroPublicWithTeam class), it reads as if the text is describing a field inside TeamPublicWithHeroes, rather than explaining how the team field is typed inside the Hero model.

Changes

I have updated the text to explicitly state that we are looking at the HeroPublicWithTeam model.

Example of clarification:

Before: "Also, notice that the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes..."
After: "Also, notice that in the HeroPublicWithTeam model, the field team is not declared with this new TeamPublicWithHeroes class..."

This small change reduces cognitive load and prevents readers from looking for a logic error in TeamPublicWithHeroes.

[github-actions]

📝 Docs preview

Last commit 33f02a1 at: https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev

Modified Pages

• https://822f6777.sqlmodel.pages.dev/tutorial/fastapi/relationships/ - (before)

[YuriiMotov]

@berkaykrc, thanks!

I agree this way it reads a bit easier.

We can also update the paragraph above:

- Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because these are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.+ Now, notice that these new fields `team` and `heroes` are not declared with `Relationship()`, because `HeroPublicWithTeam` and `TeamPublicWithHeroes` are not **table models**, they cannot have **relationship attributes** with the magic access to get that data from the database.

("these" replaced with explicit "HeroPublicWithTeam and TeamPublicWithHeroes")

[svlandeg]

Thanks @berkaykrc! I also applied @YuriiMotov's suggestion, to make both these paragraphs crystal clear 🎉