You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Where the server decides to use default include paths, i.e. when the client does not provide any include paths, there seems no way for the client to specify that it does not want any include paths.
I.e. these two requests:
GET /api/posts
GET /api/post?include
both use the default include paths. However, in the second one the client has specified no include paths, so none should be used... i.e. default include paths should only be used if the client has not provided an include query parameter.
This is potentially breaking though (i.e. if there are clients out there doing request with an empty include parameter), so probably needs to be fixed for 2.0.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This should be considered a bug IMO as it violates JSON:API specification:
Inclusion of Related Resources
[...]
If an endpoint supports the include parameter and a client supplies it, the server MUST NOT include unrequested resource objects in the included section of the compound document.
This is not fixable in 1.x because the neomerx package uses the default include paths from the schema if the include paths from the encoding parameters are empty. I.e. there is no way for the client to indicate that it wants nothing included.
Where the server decides to use default include paths, i.e. when the client does not provide any include paths, there seems no way for the client to specify that it does not want any include paths.
I.e. these two requests:
both use the default include paths. However, in the second one the client has specified no include paths, so none should be used... i.e. default include paths should only be used if the client has not provided an include query parameter.
This is potentially breaking though (i.e. if there are clients out there doing request with an empty include parameter), so probably needs to be fixed for 2.0.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: