Add support for the tree parameter on field and concept resources

[bruth]

This change now properly filters out fields and concepts unrelated to
the requested tree. Clients can use this parameter for these resources
to drive the context of the application.

Fix #214

Signed-off-by: Byron Ruth b@devel.io

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.09%) when pulling da5df63 on issue-214 into 6086128 on master.

[naegelyd]

Any reason you create the Q conditions by ORing and filtering here but ANDing and excluding in the Concept get_queryset method above? If there is no reason for the difference then it might be good to construct and use the Q conditions the same way in both Field and Concept cases(nit). If there is a reason for the difference, might be worth documenting somewhere.

[bruth]

Doing an OR on the DataConcept filtering requires only one field to match the condition. A concept could be created that includes a field from an excluded or unrelated model, so the requirement is to exclude concepts if any fields do not match.

[naegelyd]

Right, my bad. Didn't read that line clearly enough the first time. These
changes look good. Should be really useful.

-Don
On Jan 18, 2015 6:58 PM, "Byron Ruth" notifications@github.com wrote:

In serrano/resources/field/base.py
#258 (diff):

@@ -82,7 +85,14 @@ def get_link_templates(self, request):
}

 def get_queryset(self, request, params):

•    queryset = self.model.objects.all()
  

•    tree = trees[params['tree']]
  

•    q = Q()
  

•    # No public method for accessing the local models on the tree
  

•    for app_name, model_name in tree._models:
  

•        q |= Q(app_name=app_name, model_name=model_name)
  

•    queryset = self.model.objects.filter(q)
  

Doing an OR on the DataConcept filtering requires only one field to match
the condition. A concept could be created that includes a field from an
excluded or unrelated model, so the requirement is to exclude concepts if
any fields do not match.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/chop-dbhi/serrano/pull/258/files#r23140993.

[bruth]

I added an extra test case for a concept that contains two unrelated fields (this should never happen in practice) and it failed. Also, I noticed that the SQL being produced awful, excessive joins and what not. So I changed the concept filtering to use a subquery on the unrelated fields which is much more straightforward and the test passes.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.1%) when pulling cc26471 on issue-214 into 6086128 on master.