Array with multiple reference types causing schema validation error

12 replies
Last updated: Dec 31, 2020
Is it possible to have a
type: array
, of more than one entry for
type: reference
? I kept getting an error that pointed to https://www.sanity.io/help/schema-array-of-invalid when I tried to make multiple
{type: 'reference', to: [a single type]}
. I tried uniquely `name`ing them on both the
to
values, and the reference type itself, but it's hung up on the fact I have dozens of
reference
types in the
type: 'array'
.
Currently reverted back to just a single
type: 'reference'
with a lot of
to
values, but it's problematic because of the many types I have, many of them have hundreds of results, making it very difficult for me to say I want "this document" from "this type"
The generated groq from that on dash is quite huge too since it has to match on a ton of fields on each type
😐
AI Update

Yes, you can have an array with multiple reference types! The error you're hitting is because Sanity requires each item in the of array to be uniquely identifiable.

The Problem

When you have multiple entries in the of array with the same type, Sanity can't tell them apart unless you give them unique name properties. From the Sanity documentation on array schemas, this won't work:

{
  type: 'array',
  name: 'items',
  of: [
    { type: 'reference', to: [{type: 'author'}] },
    { type: 'reference', to: [{type: 'book'}] },  // Both are type: 'reference'!
  ]
}

The Solution

Add a unique name property to each reference definition:

{
  type: 'array',
  name: 'items',
  of: [
    {
      type: 'reference',
      name: 'authorReference',  // Unique name
      to: [{type: 'author'}],
      title: 'Author'
    },
    {
      type: 'reference',
      name: 'bookReference',  // Different unique name
      to: [{type: 'book'}],
      title: 'Book'
    },
    {
      type: 'reference',
      name: 'articleReference',
      to: [{type: 'article'}],
      title: 'Article'
    }
    // Add as many as you need!
  ]
}

Each array item will have its _type set to the name you specified (e.g., authorReference, bookReference), which allows Sanity to distinguish between them.

Why This Helps Your Use Case

You mentioned that having a single reference with many to values makes it hard to find specific documents because hundreds of results appear. By splitting them into separate named references, you can:

  1. Group by type - Each reference type appears as a separate option in the Studio UI
  2. Better UX - Users select the type of reference first, then search within that specific document type
  3. Cleaner queries - Your GROQ queries will be more manageable since each reference has a distinct _type

The array will store data like:

[
  {"_type": "authorReference", "_ref": "author-123"},
  {"_type": "bookReference", "_ref": "book-456"}
]

This approach gives you dozens of reference types in a single array while maintaining a clean, organized interface!

Show original thread
12 replies
Do you have it set up like this?

fields: [
  ...,
  {
    name: "involved",
    title: "People Involved",
    type: 'array',
    of: [
      {
        type: "reference",
        to: [{ type: "managers" }, { type: "staff" }],
      },
    ],
  },
...
}

thats what i currently have it set up as, but I would like to have multiple
type: 'reference'
inside it so I can have more targeted search by types
Or some means of being able to select what type that was given to it in the reference link dialog. Right now the choice is search all the `to`s, which is like dumping the entire dataset every search
You can’t have multiple ones like you describe unfortunately, but would it help with a filter? https://www.sanity.io/docs/reference-type#filter-ebd7a95f9dc6
Right now the choice is search all the `to`s, which is like dumping the entire dataset every search
This shouldn't be a concern, it's basically the same as any query to the dataset, but I get why the user experience might not be the best if you don't what to search for.
The solution here is to add
name
 to the array fields so that the studio knows how to differ between them.
{
      name: 'multipleReferences',
      type: 'array',
      of: [
        {
          name: 'referenceA',
          type: 'reference',
          to: [{type: 'a'}],
          title: 'Make reference to A docs'
        },
        {
          name: 'referenceB',
          type: 'reference',
          to: [{type: 'b'}],
          title: 'Make reference to B docs'
        }
      ]
    },

This will change the array items` 
_type
 from
reference
 to
referenceA
and
referenceB
Wish it didn't change the _type (current auto-dereferencing code I wrote doesn't understand that) but I guess I can match on _type
^reference(_\w*)?
and pray everyone follows convention.
You can look for the
_ref
key?
That’s the best guarantee. I see your point though!
Probably, but is that _ref key protected like _type is (as in, I can't make a field
name: '__ref')
? (you're drunk slack, get some coffee)
Good to know though. A coworker recently fell into that
name
trap and neither of us could figure out what was going on (outside of "name seems to be dangerous, dont use it)". Now I can explain it lol
I don’t think it’s protected like that, but I have never observe anyone use it outside of the reference context. We should probably throw a warning if you do add field names that corresponds with those we use for specific things

Sanity – Build the way you think, not the way your CMS thinks

Sanity is the developer-first content operating system that gives you complete control. Schema-as-code, GROQ queries, and real-time APIs mean no more workarounds or waiting for deployments. Free to start, scale as you grow.

Was this answer helpful?