Jkmarx/limit events api response #2944
Conversation
refinery/core/serializers.py
Outdated
| @@ -34,13 +34,17 @@ def get_is_owner(self, data_set): | |||
| logger.error("Request is missing a user: %s", e) | |||
| return False | |||
| return user_request == owner | |||
| else: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
left out else, fixes null response from API
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe just return in the first try? And you could do the same thing in the except:
def get_is_owner(self, data_set):
try:
return data_set.is_owner
except:
owner = data_set.get_owner()
try:
return owner == self.context.get('request').user
except AttributeError as e:
logger.error("Request is missing a user: %s", e)
return False
refinery/core/test_views.py
Outdated
| self.assertEqual( | ||
| json.loads(get_response.content), | ||
| get_response.data, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
reorder response (api now handles it)
refinery/core/serializers.py
Outdated
| @@ -34,13 +34,17 @@ def get_is_owner(self, data_set): | |||
| logger.error("Request is missing a user: %s", e) | |||
| return False | |||
| return user_request == owner | |||
| else: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe just return in the first try? And you could do the same thing in the except:
def get_is_owner(self, data_set):
try:
return data_set.is_owner
except:
owner = data_set.get_owner()
try:
return owner == self.context.get('request').user
except AttributeError as e:
logger.error("Request is missing a user: %s", e)
return False
refinery/core/serializers.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| def get_public(self, data_set): | ||
| try: | ||
| data_set.public | ||
| except: | ||
| is_public = data_set.is_public() | ||
| return is_public | ||
| else: | ||
| return data_set.public |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ditto: You don't want to do too much in a try, but just returning isn't going cause a different exception
| ).data, | ||
| 'group': None, | ||
| 'user': UserSerializer(self.user).data, | ||
| 'type': 'UPDATE', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Originally the type was one of the CRUD verbs, so I'm surprised this isn't CREATE?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
... but it looks like it's just being copied from below, so not a new issue...
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2944 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 59.39% 59.17% -0.22%
===========================================
Files 434 434
Lines 27345 27109 -236
Branches 1279 1273 -6
===========================================
- Hits 16242 16043 -199
+ Misses 11103 11066 -37
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Ref #2909