estebistec / drf-compound-fields Goto Github PK

As this is a new project, the following project loose ends need to be tied up to make this project as friendly and possible to consumers and contributors:

• RTFD site
• coverage
• continuous integration
• latest release badge
• downloads badge

virtual/lib/python3.7/site-packages/drf_compound_fields/fields.py", line 10, in

from rest_framework.compat import six
ImportError: cannot import name 'six' from 'rest_framework.compat' (virtual/lib/python3.7/site-packages/rest_framework/compat.py)

I was following the documentation, trying to integrate this into a new django-rest-framework-based project, but I ran into trouble trying to use ListOrItemField(serializers.URLField()). Namely, it never validates a list of URLs.

The documentation is correct when it comes to an item:

In [1]: from drf_compound_fields.fields import ListField
In [2]: from drf_compound_fields.fields import ListOrItemField
In [3]: from rest_framework import serializers
In [4]: class SkillsProfileSerializer(serializers.Serializer):
   ...:     name = serializers.CharField()
   ...:     skills = ListField(serializers.CharField(min_length=3))
   ...:     social_links = ListOrItemField(serializers.URLField())
   ...: 
In [5]: data = SkillsProfileSerializer({
   ...:     'name': 'John Smith',
   ...:     'skills': ['Python'],
   ...:     'social_links': 'http://chrp.com/johnsmith'
   ...: }).data
In [6]: sps = SkillsProfileSerializer(data=data)
In [7]: assert sps.is_valid(), sps.errors

But if you try to feed back in the serialized output of a list of URLs, it fails:

In [8]: data = SkillsProfileSerializer({
   ...:     'name': 'John Smith',
   ...:     'skills': ['Python'],
   ...:     'social_links': ['http://chrp.com/johnsmith', 'http://myface.com/johnsmith']
   ...: }).data
In [9]: data
Out[9]: {'name': u'John Smith', 'skills': [u'Python'], 'social_links': [u'http://chrp.com/johnsmith', u'http://myface.com/johnsmith']}
In [10]: sps = SkillsProfileSerializer(data=data)
In [11]: assert sps.is_valid(), sps.errors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssertionError                            Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-10-6f75eb6cf39f> in <module>()
----> 1 assert sps.is_valid(), sps.errors

AssertionError: {'social_links': [u'Invalid value.']}

I haven't had time to implement a fix yet (trying to hit a deadline), but If you don't have time in the next couple days I should be able to loop back and figure out what's going wrong.

Note that that same data works fine for a ListField:

In [12]: data
Out[12]: {'name': u'John Smith', 'skills': [u'Python'], 'social_links': [u'http://chrp.com/johnsmith', u'http://myface.com/johnsmith']}
In [13]: class SkillsProfileSerializer(serializers.Serializer):
   ...:     name = serializers.CharField()
   ...:     skills = ListField(serializers.CharField(min_length=3))
   ...:     social_links = ListField(serializers.URLField())
   ...: 
In [14]: sps = SkillsProfileSerializer(data=data)
In [15]: assert sps.is_valid(), sps.errors

I discovered this when working with ListOrItemField and wanted to know if this usage-pattern is excluded by design or if this is a bug/feature.
(and what solution is preferred before I start working on a PR).

Example for my problem:

class SubSerializer(serializers.Serializer):
    field_1 = serializers.IntegerField()

class MainSerializer(serializers.Serializer):
    testfield = ListOrItemField(item_field=SubSerializer())

• The data is parsed and converted correctly
• but the validation logic is not applied

Is this field-type only designed to work with other fields? Or should we fix this?

Once we have a good release of this project, make a pull request to Django REST framework docs, on the fields page (and maybe a note on serializers near many=True), pointing to this project to get these extra field types.

Currently returning ValidationError instances in dictionaries that collect embedded errors. Looking at how embedded plural serializers (many=True) behave, they appear to be just returning the messages. This package should to the same.

HT @mwarkentin

Following the instructions of how to setup a developer's environment and running the unit tests raises this error on python setup.py test:

_____________________________________________________________________ ERROR collecting djangorestframework-2.3.14-py2.7.egg/rest_framework/tests/test_authentication.py ______________________________________________________________________
djangorestframework-2.3.14-py2.7.egg/rest_framework/tests/test_authentication.py:2: in

from django.contrib.auth.models import User
../../.virtualenvs/drf_compound_fields/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/contrib/auth/init.py:6: in
from django.middleware.csrf import rotate_token
../../.virtualenvs/drf_compound_fields/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/middleware/csrf.py:14: in
from django.utils.cache import patch_vary_headers
../../.virtualenvs/drf_compound_fields/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/utils/cache.py:26: in
from django.core.cache import get_cache
../../.virtualenvs/drf_compound_fields/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/cache/init.py:69: in
if DEFAULT_CACHE_ALIAS not in settings.CACHES:
../../.virtualenvs/drf_compound_fields/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/conf/init.py:54: in getattr
self._setup(name)
../../.virtualenvs/drf_compound_fields/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/conf/init.py:47: in _setup
% (desc, ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE))
E ImproperlyConfigured: Requested setting CACHES, but settings are not configured. You must either define the environment variable DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE or call settings.configure() before accessing settings.

I'm not sure if it's some step missing in the docs or some problem on my virtualenv

A new version of Django is out, and drf-compund-fields is forcing Django to be downgraded when pip installing.
Perhaps the following might be a better option:

Django>=1.6" 

The same issue affects the other dependencies listed in the requirements.txt.

The isinstance(..., list) check fails on queryset/manager values and so the repr of the queryset/manager object is displayed as a single object instead of showing a list of objects.

The advice is probably to just use RelatedField, but the reason for wanting to use ListOrItemField is to allow older API clients which are expecting to set and get a single value to do so without making any changes.

There is no more WritableField in the drf, so it no longer works

It would be great to get validation on list lengths.

eg.

ListField(Field(...), max_length=10)

Hi, great work!
I have been using a customized DictField which will include part of dict if users specify included_keys = []. The motivation is that for a django's json field [https://bitbucket.org/schinckel/django-jsonfield/], I only want to return part of the data inside of that field. I am not sure if you are ok if I create a pull request for this. Thanks.

It would be very useful to be able to nest compound fields, such as a DictField inside of a ListField.

# [{"name": Joe, "username": joey, id: 12,}, {"name": "Sally", "username": "codehero", id: 2}]

my_field = ListField(DictField())

In my testing, this didn't seem to currently be possible. Is there a reason why it isn't supported?

• Build out README with examples
• Build out doc site
  • Tutorial
  • Examples

We ran across a small bug with the ListField when a string is passed in:

def from_native():
    ...
    if self.item_field and data:
        return [self.item_field.from_native(item_data) for item_data in data]

This was causing a List of characters from the string to be passed into validate, so if not isinstance(data, list): wasn't actually being triggered. We moved the list check up into from_native, and it seems to be working well.

If this is quick to do and simplifies test reading & writing, go for it.

http://pydanny.com/pytest-no-boilerplate-testing.html

Create a simple field type, building upon ListField, that allows values to be either lists or individual items of the embedded field-type.

E.g., ListOrItem(CharFIeld) would validate and serialize either 'a' or ['a', 'b', 'c'].

Hi!

Here is a possible bug:
https://github.com/estebistec/drf-compound-fields/blob/master/drf_compound_fields/fields.py#L105

Shouldn't it be(?):

self.list_field = ListField(item_field, *args, **kwargs)

Otherwise validators may report required field error for some circumstances. Consider example:

myfield = ListOrItemField(IntegerField(), required=False, blank=True)

so, it woud result into:

[] -> Error myfield is required