I am using a nested serializer. I need ProfileSerializer to return full
related Project object for get requests and consider only id switching
(changing current) like with relatedPrimaryField behaiviour for post/put
requests on ProfileSerializer. any solutions on how to achieve this ?
class P
Stupid question: have you installed the coreapi package?
Antoine
Le lundi 13 mars 2017 17:18:56 UTC+1, Daviddd a écrit :
>
> Dear All,
>
> Django 1.10.6
> Django-rest-framework 3.6.2
>
>
> ```
> #api/urls.py
> def include_version(version):
> """
> Returns an include statement containing U
Hi,
I'm making some tests with the built-in documentation (really nice work
btw) and it looks like the interactive mode does not work completly. I'm
playing with a list operation, I can see the request is sent and that it
returns data but it is not displayed in the window, I just get an
"undef
Hi,
Logs from the server would really be helpful here.
What does it says ? 500 ? 400 ?
If 500, what’s the traceback ?
Regards,
Xavier Ordoquy,
Linovia.
> Le 16 mars 2017 à 16:51, Antoine Nguyen a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm making some tests with the built-in documentation (really nice work btw)
That's the problem, there is no error... (python or js)
Return code is 200 and I see valid data when I inspect the response using
Firebug.
Antoine
2017-03-16 17:00 GMT+01:00 Xavier Ordoquy :
> Hi,
>
> Logs from the server would really be helpful here.
> What does it says ? 500 ? 400 ?
> If 500,
Ok, it looks like a browser issue.
I can see the result when I use chromium but not when I use Firefox ESR
(45.8) on a Debian 8 system.
Antoine
2017-03-16 17:02 GMT+01:00 Antoine Nguyen :
> That's the problem, there is no error... (python or js)
>
> Return code is 200 and I see valid data when
in documents..
The write_only_fields option on ModelSerializer has been moved to
PendingDeprecation and replaced with a more generic extra_kwargs
http:
//www.django-rest-framework.org/topics/3.0-announcement/#the-extra_kwargs-option
Why do not you use 'write_only_fields' while using 'read_onl
Hi,
We didn’t remove the read_only_fields as it’s pretty common.
However, I would be willing to remove the read_only_fields since the
extra_kwargs is already there.
Regards,
Xavier Ordoquy,
Linovia.
> Le 17 mars 2017 à 07:01, CocaCola a écrit :
>
> in documents..
>
> The write_only_fields op
What I need to do is to have something like:
/api/users/me to point to my current user.
Requirements:
1) I need to be able to do GET, PUT on the object
One of the following can be helpful:
1) Bind url path to record
2) Custom callback to return the serialization object
So, what is the best way
>
> Will read_only_fields also disappear? soon?
>
Any reason?
class SomeSerializer(serializer.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = SomeModel
fields = ('somefield1', 'somefield2', 'somefield3')
extra_kwargs = {
'somefield2': {'write_only': True},
My opinion is that read_only_fields feature is already provided by extra_kwargs
which does much more than just set the read/write flag. That would also help
provide this feature which is under used by users.
Note that I said "I’m willing to remove it" and did *not* say "it will be
removed".
Re
11 matches
Mail list logo