Use foreign_key option when getting foreign key value.#1001
Merged
lgebhardt merged 1 commit intoJSONAPI-Resources:masterfrom Mar 21, 2017
dougo:use-foreign_key-in-foreign_key_value
Merged
Use foreign_key option when getting foreign key value.#1001lgebhardt merged 1 commit intoJSONAPI-Resources:masterfrom dougo:use-foreign_key-in-foreign_key_value
lgebhardt merged 1 commit intoJSONAPI-Resources:masterfrom
dougo:use-foreign_key-in-foreign_key_value
Conversation
Contributor
|
@dougo Thanks! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I noticed that I was getting N+1 queries when using
always_include_to_one_linkage_data. I tracked it down to theforeign_key_valuemethod, which does try to use the foreign key without loading the associated object, but it was hardcoded to usefoo_idrather than using the relationship's:foreign_keyoption if provided. Pretty straightforward fix.I also added a unit test for this logic, because I couldn't find any obvious way to modify an existing test to cover this. Let me know if you have a better idea (or if you think it doesn't need to be tested).