Change exclude_none back to exclude_unset
#247
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
alcarney
force-pushed
the
undo-exclude-none
branch
from
934ba94 to
23a644c
Compare
This undoes the change in openlawlibrary#236 as well as bring back the explicit setting of non `None` default fields as suggested in [1] This commit also introduces serialization test cases that hopefully cover all the scenarios raised in openlawlibrary#245, openlawlibrary#231 and openlawlibrary#198 [1]: openlawlibrary#245 (comment)
alcarney
force-pushed
the
undo-exclude-none
branch
from
23a644c to
0ff5867
Compare
|
Amazing. It looks great to me. Let's merge whenever you're ready. |
|
It's ready to go, I guess we just need a formal review to enable the merge button? |
tombh
approved these changes
Jul 4, 2022
|
Shipped 🚢 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description (e.g. "Related to ...", etc.)
This undoes the change in #236 as well as bring back the explicit setting of non
Nonedefault fields as suggested in this commentThis commit also introduces serialization test cases that hopefully cover all the scenarios raised in #245, #231 and #198
Let me know if you think there are any other scenarios that should be covered by the new tests.
Closes #245
Code review checklist (for code reviewer to complete)