Skip to content

Fix resource name inconsistency between included and relationships #229

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged

Conversation

martinmaillard
Copy link
Contributor

@martinmaillard martinmaillard commented Apr 21, 2016

When setting resource_name = None, the related instance's resource
name is used in relationships, but None is used in included.

This is related to
#94

and #124

@martinmaillard martinmaillard changed the title Add failing test for resource name consistency Fix resource name inconsistency between included and relationships Apr 21, 2016
When setting `resource_name = None`, the related instance's resource
name is used in `relationships`, but `None` is used in `included`.

This is related to django-json-api#94 and django-json-api#124
@martinmaillard martinmaillard force-pushed the included-relationship-type branch from e123237 to f1b0691 Compare April 21, 2016 12:54
@jerel jerel merged commit 2bd4aea into django-json-api:develop Apr 29, 2016
jerel added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2016
* docs: note about importing serializers

* Document ResourceRelatedField and RelationshipView

* Updated pip install instructions for 2.0.0-beta.2

* Add LimitOffsetPagination

* Dont let the offset go into negative space

* Add basic unit test for LimitOffsetPagination

* Support deeply nested includes
Allow skipping of intermediate included models

* Add current tox.ini directory to PYTHONPATH in order to use imports form there
Fix regression on PY3 caused by unicode_literals

* [FEATURE]: support using get_serializer_class on view

* fixed extract_root_meta for lists

* Fixed get_resource_name in case of non-model backed serializer.

Closes #219

* ResourceRelatedField now accepts serializer methods when many=True

* Rename "suggested" posts to "featured" so we can use suggested as many=True

* Updated SerializerMethodResourceRelatedField to allow many=True

Issue #151
Closes #220

* Correct error responses for projects with different DRF-configurations (#222)

* [#214] Add error messages tests.

* [#214] Extract formatting DRF errors.

* Add example view with custom handle_exception.

* Use HTTP 422 for validation error responses.

* Add full example of class-configured json api view.

* Fixed naming that suggested settings were used to inflect relationship names.

JSON_API_FORMAT_RELATION_NAME actually inflected the `type` instead.
The relation name is not changable at this time although if it woudl
be useful to someone it would be fine to implement it.
Closes #136.

* Updated changelog

* Added a doc note to prefer setting resource_name on serializers or models.

Closes #207

* Added get_related_field_name method to RelationshipView

* Added get_related_field_name method to RelationshipView

* Added docs about field_name_mapping

* Updated the readme for testing (#234)

* Allow exception handler to be used by normal DRF views: (#233)

* Add top-level 'errors' object to non-JSON-API responses
* Allow configuring the exception handler to be used _only_
  in JSON API views or uniformly across all views

* Fix included resource type inconsistency (#229)

When setting `resource_name = None`, the related instance's resource
name is used in `relationships`, but `None` is used in `included`.

This is related to #94 and #124

* Fixes #230. Keep write only fields from having an attribute key

* Release v2.0.0

* Update setup.py to classify as production/stable
khornberg pushed a commit to imtapps-dev/django-rest-framework-json-api that referenced this pull request May 2, 2016
When setting `resource_name = None`, the related instance's resource
name is used in `relationships`, but `None` is used in `included`.

This is related to django-json-api#94 and django-json-api#124
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants