Konstantin Ryabitsev writes:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 05:00:34PM +0100, Stephen Finucane wrote:
>> v2.2.6 is available now. Let me know if there are any issues.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> Somewhat related: are there any large blockers preventing you moving to
>> v3.0.x?
>> Is it the major version bump or
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 05:00:34PM +0100, Stephen Finucane wrote:
> v2.2.6 is available now. Let me know if there are any issues.
Thanks!
> Somewhat related: are there any large blockers preventing you moving to
> v3.0.x?
> Is it the major version bump or removal of Python 2.7 support that's
>
On Fri, 2021-10-22 at 08:28 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 17:59, Stephen Finucane wrote:
> > > We remove fields that shouldn't be seen on old versions of the API.
> > > This was done with `pop(field name)`, which will throw an exception
> > > if the named field is abs
On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 17:59, Stephen Finucane wrote:
> > We remove fields that shouldn't be seen on old versions of the API.
> > This was done with `pop(field name)`, which will throw an exception
> > if the named field is absent from the data. However, sometimes if
> > a patch request is via an
On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 00:57 +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> We remove fields that shouldn't be seen on old versions of the API.
> This was done with `pop(field name)`, which will throw an exception
> if the named field is absent from the data. However, sometimes if
> a patch request is via an old API
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 12:57:58AM +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> This is odd, but not harmful and we definitely shouldn't 500.
I can confirm that it fixes the 500 error and restores previous functionality.
Thanks very much!
Tested-by: Konstantin Ryabitsev
-K
We remove fields that shouldn't be seen on old versions of the API.
This was done with `pop(field name)`, which will throw an exception
if the named field is absent from the data. However, sometimes if
a patch request is via an old API version, we hit this line without
ever having the field present
