Nested associations for json adapter #1124
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
initial refactor to make way for easy feature adding refactored a bit more, and matched some method names to that of json_api rename add_relationship methods to be less awkward tests added all tests tpass remove binding.pry require fixed app warnings removed unused method changed restrict_to to nested_associations and changed nested_relationships to nested_associations_to_include removed unneeded parameter from add_resource_relationships simplify key check added another test, showing multiple relationship serializers refactored include_array_to_hash to a utils module - this also simplified the test for it. yay
NullVoxPopuli
force-pushed
the
nested-associations-for-json-adapter
branch
from
6b6ada8 to
0589aa2
Compare
|
cloned in favor of #1127 cause... I'm bad at squashing apparently |
|
😂 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Originally #1114 (I messed up the history because I merged instead of rebased)
This PR is based off of #1111, cause I needed the refactoring.
Discussion of idea here: #1113
Basically:
resulting json may look like:
See the included tests for more examples.