-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 114
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
Remove old sub-resource syntax #252
Comments
This is related to #77. Long story short, the second approach (the newest syntax) is recommended, and should work for more cases. The first approach (the earliest implementation of sub-schemas) should be deprecated, but some code still exists that only considers the earlier syntax. My plan for solving this and other issues, is to do a proto-type for a new schema package design. However my progress have been (and is going to be) extremely slow. |
Since the scope of #77 has grown, and my progress is expected to be very slow btw. It might be good to keep this issue open, if anyone wants to fix it against the current design. I would recommend to remove the I am happy to accept/review any PR with such changes, but am afraid I won't have time to write the code. |
@smyrman thanks for the explanation. I might have a swing at that next month. |
Renamed to reflect the work that is to be done. |
I want a resource with an array of a sub-resource, and everything properly checked for validity.
As a preamble, I found two ways of declaring a sub-resource and I fail to see the difference between them. First approach:
Second approach:
With that in mind, I found that using the first approach works when the subresource is a regular field, but not when declared inside an array. OTOH the second approach works in both cases.
Running that code and POSTing some data, here is what I see:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: