I like that idea, Tim. A few things came up, so I'll open this PR next week.
Thanks,
Andrew
On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 12:21:43 PM UTC-5 schill...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> Andrew (Mshar) how do you feel about reworking:
>
> > If you know someone who you think should be considered
Hi folks!
Andrew (Mshar) how do you feel about reworking:
> If you know someone who you think should be considered for Individual
Membership or would like to nominate yourself, please fill out this form
> DRF’s behaviour feels more correct to me, since it allows terser views
that don’t check the content type explicitly. But it’s less backwards
compatible. I’m not sure which I prefer.
Given the .data attribute would be a new feature of the request object I
assume we don't have any backward
This first-step solution is good with me. It will allow everyone to switch
to request.data (etc.). And there’d be a clear way to use your own logic to
set request.data if needed: write a middleware (or view decorator, view
class, etc.).
What should request.data be/do in the case of an unsupported
