Support renaming of relationships #270
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
… not passing yet.
…relationship config into one helper
mattpolzin
force-pushed
the
relationship-rewrite
branch
from
893b11a
to
cd7863e
Compare
mattpolzin
force-pushed
the
relationship-rewrite
branch
from
cd7863e
to
bb84ce0
Compare
|
Thanks for the PR @mattpolzin! I'll spend some time today reviewing this but at a quick glance this looks good and has test coverage 🎉 |
|
I think I'll merge this soon and start working on release notes for a new release (there will have been a solid chunk of changes, not just this PR) if no one comments to say they are going to leave a review in the near future. |
snewcomer
reviewed
Jan 9, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR introduces the ability to rename relationships in the JSONAPI View.
Other changes in this PR are mostly to rename a few variables local to functions where I felt that it served clarity (like
view->parent_view).Similar results can be achieved for attributes by writing custom functions of the same name as the attribute being exposed. I considered adding relationship renaming in a similar fashion, but I believe that with relationships you gain more by not needing to dig into the model and produce the relationship yourself than with attributes and at the same time there is less benefit to writing an entire function (I am not aware of use-cases beyond renaming the relationship that would benefit from this other than fabricating relationships that are not represented in the underlying data-source).
As a side note, fabricating relationships is supported as-is with the feature this PR provides, but it feels like an unusual enough desire to not document explicitly in the readme.