Included field might not be set #172
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Could you please update the example for that specific use case and add appropriate tests ? |
|
Sure, I've added my first attempt at this. |
|
This looks good to me now. Thanks for the PR! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I have three models:
AccountTypeA/AccountTypeB each have a OneToOneField to Account. Account can only be of type A or B, not both. In my AccountSerializer I've included the attributes for both the reversed relationships. I've also included the AccountTypeA/AccountTypeB serializers in included_serializers.
extract_included expects both fields to be present on every account instance when in reality each account will have either the A or B relation. This pull request makes extract_included to ignore missing fields.