Skip to content
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

Possible exception during validation of IPAddressField #4335

6 tasks done
Stranger6667 opened this issue Aug 1, 2016 · 1 comment
6 tasks done

Possible exception during validation of IPAddressField #4335

Stranger6667 opened this issue Aug 1, 2016 · 1 comment


Copy link

Stranger6667 commented Aug 1, 2016

I faced with not expected behaviour of IPAddress field during validation certain types of input.


  • I have verified that that issue exists against the master branch of Django REST framework.
  • I have searched for similar issues in both open and closed tickets and cannot find a duplicate.
  • This is not a usage question. (Those should be directed to the discussion group instead.)
  • This cannot be dealt with as a third party library. (We prefer new functionality to be in the form of third party libraries where possible.)
  • I have reduced the issue to the simplest possible case.
  • I have included a failing test as a pull request. (If you are unable to do so we can still accept the issue.)

Steps to reproduce

  1. Create a serializer with IPAddressField
  2. Pass not iterable object as input for the serializer. E.g. integer.

Expected behavior

Validation error with usual text:
['Enter a valid IPv4 or IPv6 address.']

Actual behavior


rest_framework/ in run_validation
    return super(CharField, self).run_validation(data)
rest_framework/ in run_validation
    value = self.to_internal_value(data)
rest_framework/ in to_internal_value
    if data and ':' in data:
E   TypeError: argument of type 'int' is not iterable
@tomchristie tomchristie added the Bug label Aug 1, 2016
@tomchristie tomchristie added this to the 3.4.2 Release milestone Aug 1, 2016
Copy link

tomchristie commented Aug 1, 2016

Yup, looks valid, given your test case.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet

No branches or pull requests

2 participants