allow input with all empty values for non-required gegevensgroup #13
Conversation
| @@ -72,7 +72,9 @@ def _value_getter(attr): | |||
|
|
|||
| def __set__(self, obj, value: Optional[dict]): | |||
| # value can be empty, if that's the case, empty all model fields | |||
| if not value: | |||
| # if all nested values are empty - treat it as empty value | |||
| all_empty = all(not bool(v) for k, v in value.items()) if value else True | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what if you have a number field where 0 is the value? the bool(0) will give False, but it's not empty. Emptiness should typically be compared against the field-specific data type & empty check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sergei-maertens Could you maybe help me with how to do it in the most meaningful way?
The problem:
In Catalogi API ZaakType will have optional gegevensgroups bronzaaktype and broncatalogus (here is OAS - https://redocly.github.io/redoc/?url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/VNG-Realisatie/catalogi-api/1.2.1/src/openapi.yaml#tag/zaaktypen/operation/zaaktype_retrieve)
So when you request zaaktype via API of export catalogus you will see gegevensgroups with empty items inside.
But when you try to import it or use it for PUT for example there would be validation error, because some items inside these gegevensgroups are not optional.
I want to avoid it. The best idea I came up with - to treat the gegevensgroup with all empty items like the empty one.
Do you perhaps have an idea how to do it better way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
from the API spec I read:
bronzaaktypekey is optional- when
bronzaaktypekey is included, it may not be null - when
bronzaaktypekey is included, the object provided must have all nested keys specified, but the values may be empty strings (no min length specified)
the idea of some items inside a gegevensgroep being optional goes directly against the (initial) concept of gegevensgroep which was created to validate all or none are provided. I feel that gegevensgroep is being misused if that's not the case, instead it would make more sense to directly define a nested serializer with the appropriate field source set.
so maybe something like this could work:
class ZaakTypeBronZaakTypeSerializers(serializers.ModelSerializer):
url = serializers.URLField(source="bronzaaktype_url")
identificatie = serializers.CharField(source="bronzaaktype_identificatie")
omschrijving = serializers.CharField(source="bronzaaktype_omschrijving")
class ZaakTypeSerializers(serializers.ModelSerializer):
...
bronzaaktype = ZaakTypeBronZaakTypeSerializer(source="*", allow_null=False, required=False)
...
|
Discussed during the call. It was decided that this change is unnecessary |
No description provided.