Fix default_sort for show_related_resources#965
Merged
lgebhardt merged 1 commit intoJSONAPI-Resources:release-0-8from Feb 23, 2017
nickgonzales:fix-to_many-default_sort
Merged
Fix default_sort for show_related_resources#965lgebhardt merged 1 commit intoJSONAPI-Resources:release-0-8from nickgonzales:fix-to_many-default_sort
lgebhardt merged 1 commit intoJSONAPI-Resources:release-0-8from
nickgonzales:fix-to_many-default_sort
Conversation
Contributor
|
@nickgonzales Thanks, the issue did exist on 0.9. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The default_sort support from #756 does not work when querying for related resources. I searched through the source and found RelationshipBuilder::build_to_many has the following logic:
The unless block shouldn't be there. It should be the resource's responsibility to apply sorts, or, if they're null, apply the default sort:
This method looks totally different on the 0.9 branch, so I don't know if the issue exists there.