Aniruddha Maru
Aniruddha Maru
@clarkduvall @tomchristie Agreed that interface should be a drop-in replacement of DRF. How about: `Serializer(instance=obj).data` and `Serializer(data=data).instance` (this has to be slightly different because DRF 3.0 changed to explicitly using...
@clarkduvall So the problem with `make_instance` approach is two-fold: I think Serpy should do `instance -> dict`, and `dict -> instance` and since the default serializer is capable of taking...
Actually, disregard that suggestion, the `Serializer(data=data).create(klass)` approach will break nested serializers.
@clarkduvall What do you think about https://github.com/clarkduvall/serpy/issues/3? I'm now inclined to go back to the `Meta` inner-class approach that will allow us customize the serializer behavior cleanly.
@clarkduvall I'm confused, wouldn't `make_object` become no-op in default case then since it's input is already a `dict`? :/
I see what you mean. What's your thought on keeping it no-op in the default implementation, but have another serializer that lets you pass in `cls`?
This will be rebased once https://github.com/maroux/serpy/tree/deserialization is landed.
Additionally, I don't know why `testing.B` code is duplicated here instead of just using `go test -bench` :/
> is this likely to be merged before v2 at this stage? No. Given that this is a breaking change.
Update: this .. kinda works? ``` @pytest.fixture(autouse=True) def settings_reset(): settings.reload() settings.validators.validate() ```