T. Franzel
T. Franzel
CSP is irrelevant for your issue. Are you absolutely sure you have installed the sidecar package in your deployed container? I strongly suspect you have not, because why would it...
Sorry to say but it makes no sense. I believe you are comparing the wrong container, that is not really exactly what is deployed (flags?, conditional build?). Can't explain it...
You mean a auth method requires multiple parameters? The trick ist to give a list for `name`, and then return a list in `get_security_definition` https://github.com/tfranzel/drf-spectacular/blob/473d2d803b9e8ae986ea60292ec0ebfb0ff2d601/tests/test_extensions.py#L164-L172
use your `api.auth.cognito.CognitoAuthentication` on that APIView and it should show up in the schema. It is not part of the body. Those are headers. No need for `@extend_schema` for this.
Hi, so 2 observations. I put your example in a test case and it works for me without error or warnings. ```python if getattr(self, 'swagger_fake_view', False): return ``` Should be...
Something is weird here. That warning cannot be explained with your example. `get_view_model` is only used twice. The first is with parameter extraction, but the warning is disabled for that...
your stacktrace cannot lead to that warning. `emit_warnings=False` does not allow it. ``` /usr/local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/drf_spectacular/openapi.py(483)_resolve_path_parameters() -> model = get_view_model(self.view, emit_warnings=False) 213 -> return view.get_queryset().model 214 except Exception as exc: 215 if...
> but I don't have queryset set to anything, which I believe will skip that if. Then you try return view.get_queryset().model, which is what is causing the Exception. yes. 207...
I should also add that `test_foo` test case above does not produce the warning and properly generates the `Invoice` component, which is correctly put in the operation. So that test...
That is what I said before! `get_view_model()` is used twice and only once with the warning enabled (`django-filter`). Your given stacktrace did not produce that warning because it was **not**...