[BUG]: Field name overwrites join with `null` [Relationship builder]

[TheDevMinerTV]

What version of drizzle-orm are you using?

0.26.1

What version of drizzle-kit are you using?

0.18.1

Describe the Bug

1. Have a field inside a table with the same DB-native name as another object

export const users = sqliteTable('users', {
  id: text('id').primaryKey(),
});

export const usersRelations = relations(users, ({ many }) => ({
  tokens: many(tokens),
}));

export const tokens = sqliteTable('tokens', {
  id: integer('id').primaryKey(),
  userId: text('user').notNull(),
  //            ^^^^
  // Notice the field name here
  // This is duplicate with the name below
});

export const tokensRelations = relations(tokens, ({ one }) => ({
  user: one(users, {
// ^^^
// This duplicates the field above
    fields: [tokens.userId],
    references: [users.id],
  }),
}));

2. Query the Token with the relational query builder:

const dbUser = await request.db.query.tokens.findFirst({
  where: eq(tokens.id, 1),
  with: {
    user: {
//  ^^^^
//  This here is the issue, I assume Drizzle doesn't know which one to
//  query
      columns: {
        id: true,
      },
    },
  },
});

The types for dbUser is the following:

const dbUser: {
    id: number;
    userId: string;
    user: {
        id: string;
        tokenType: string;
        accessToken: string;
    };
} | undefined

but at runtime the type is this:

{
  id: 1,
  userId: '81095245',
  user: null
}

I'm not quite sure why user here is null but renaming the first field in the DB fixed it.

Expected behavior

The object should not contain null at runtime.

Environment & setup

Cloudflare Workers + Cloudflare D1 (SQLite)

Notes

If anyone finds a better title, please suggest / edit it :)

[dankochetov]

You can't have the relation name be the same as the DB column name.

[TheDevMinerTV]

Yes, but it's not enforced anywhere in the code, I would've atleast expected an Error to be thrown at runtime.

(And I'm not sure if it's even mentioned anywhere in the docs)

[gamebox]

yeah, I would agree that this is mostly a documentation issue.

[Obazure]

Guys, what is the progress?

Will relationship type have null?

I mean:

const dbUser: {
    id: number;
    userId: string;
    user: {
        id: string;
        tokenType: string;
        accessToken: string;
    } | null; <<<<<<< null here one
} | undefined

I think it should be added for one-to-X relationship, because in a real works it may happen that secondary table does not contain relevant record.

Or how to resolve it on our side?