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

Docstring of Field.get_default is misleading #4404

5 of 6 tasks
tyrion opened this issue Aug 15, 2016 · 1 comment
5 of 6 tasks

Docstring of Field.get_default is misleading #4404

tyrion opened this issue Aug 15, 2016 · 1 comment


Copy link

tyrion commented Aug 15, 2016


  • 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.)


The docstring of Field.get_default says:

If a default has not been set for this field then this will simply
return empty, indicating that no value should be set in the
validated data for this field.

But if default has not been set the method raises SkipField instead.

if self.default is empty or getattr(self.root, 'partial', False):
    # No default, or this is a partial update.
    raise SkipField()

I suggest either to change the documentation to reflect the actual behaviour or change the code to reflect the doc.

@tomchristie tomchristie added this to the 3.4.5 Release milestone Aug 15, 2016
@tomchristie tomchristie changed the title Documentation of Field.get_default is misleading Docstring of Field.get_default is misleading Aug 15, 2016
Copy link

tomchristie commented Aug 15, 2016

Tweaked the title and description slightly to make it clear it's the method docstring that's incorrect, rather than the documentation.

And yup, good catch - thanks!

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