Loading multiple yaml files with the same table name causes only the last one to be used.

[ryanneufeld]

In our use-case we have some common test data that we want in a table named "feature" for example.

If we load multiple files named 'feature.yml' from multiple paths, only the data from the last one added is present.

Instead I would have expected the data from both files to be aggregated before being inserted.

[andreynering]

Hi @ryanneufeld, thanks for opening this issue!

I'm not sure what to think about this feature request.

Although easy to implement, it feels wrong to me to have multiple files for the same table. Any reason on why you don't keep all records in the same file?

[ryanneufeld]

Our use-case has a set of common data and then a set of test specific data for the same tables. This allows us to have a test suite sufficient enough to match our production environment. Consider a tree that looks like this: ```` ├── common │ ├── apilog.yml │ ├── coupon.yml │ ├── feature.yml │ ├── invoice.yml │ ├── invoice_lineitem.yml │ ├── invoice_payment.yml │ ├── package.yml │ ├── package_feature.yml │ ├── payment_processor.yml │ ├── price_tier.yml │ ├── service_grant.yml │ ├── subscription.yml │ ├── subscription_feature.yml │ ├── subscription_flag.yml │ ├── subscription_transaction.yml │ ├── subscription_trial_state.yml │ ├── subscription_upgrade.yml │ ├── transaction_type.yml │ └── user_feature.yml ├── expects │ ├── intern │ │ ├── features │ │ │ └── TestIntegrationRead_1 │ │ │ └── feature.yml │ │ └── subscriptions │ │ └── TestIntegrationReadCollection_1 │ │ └── subscription.yml │ └── legacy │ └── method │ └── intern │ └── features │ └── TestIntegrationRead_1 │ └── feature.yml ```` Where the directories are expects data that are loaded for the tests, and added to the existing common data. What I've done so far to work around it is to load each file in with yaml.Unmarshall() and then use a template to combine them all. But it's cumbersome and obfuscated.

…

On Sun., Jul. 19, 2020, 17:17 Andrey Nering, ***@***.***> wrote: Hi @ryanneufeld <https://github.com/ryanneufeld>, thanks for opening this issue! I'm not sure what to think about this feature request. Although easy to implement, it feels wrong to me to have multiple files for the same table. Any reason on why you don't keep all records in the same file? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#76 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEO5BWUJKO3GNPVG7HHIF3R4OEITANCNFSM4OU4DSJQ> .

[mingrammer]

+1. I need this feature too.