Serializer issue with embedded relationships.

[jcbvm]

Got a lot of you must include an 'id' for some-model in an object passed to 'push' errors since I upgraded to 1.13.4. Tracked it down and it seems to come from my embedded relationships. When I do not define a custom serializer for the embedded relationship, above error is thrown. When I do create a custom serializer (just an empty RESTSerializer), above error disappears.

[wecc]

Thanks for reporting! Would you be able to reproduce the error in a JSBin?

[jcbvm]

Will try to later this afternoon.

[wecc]

Here's a pre-configured JSBin using Ember 1.13.2 and Ember Data 1.13.4 without any deprecation warnings you can use: http://emberjs.jsbin.com/zotuta/edit?html,js,output

[jcbvm]

Here's a JSBin reproducing the error http://emberjs.jsbin.com/kubupaluma/edit?html,js,output

[wecc]

Thanks @jcbvm! This seem to be a bug where your serializer:book extracts it's embedded author and looks up the serializer:author to normalize the author's data. And because serializer:book is defined in your app it's not using the new Serializer API, but serializer:author is looked up and automatically opted in to the new Serializer API... so two serializers are working together on two different APIs.

I'm not sure how to solve this but it should be fixed.

Until then you can either have your serializer:book opt into the new Serializer API by setting isNewSerializerAPI: true or just define serializer:author to make sure it too uses the old Serializer API.

[jcbvm]

Thanks for looking into, makes some sense now. Currently I'm working around this by defining an empty serializer, so using the old API.

[igorT]

@wecc this is actually tricky, we should think if there is a way to make sure you always use new or old serializer throughout the request

[wecc]

@igorT there's an assert in RESTSerializer that doesn't solve this particular problem, but might at least give some information about what's happening, see https://github.com/emberjs/data/blob/release/packages/ember-data/lib/serializers/rest-serializer.js#L218

We could implement this assert in multiple places (where we do serializerFor within serializers, practically)

[bmac]

We could implement this assert in multiple places (where we do serializerFor within serializers, practically)

I think this sounds like a great idea.

[wecc]

Closing since #3511 has been merged.