-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 628
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refactor Field.serialize() #799
Comments
Seems like a sensible change. I'll mark it for 3.0, since it would be a backwards-incompatible change, though I'm not sure this needs to be a hard blocker for 3.0 final. |
@deckar01 we may postpone this, unless you think it is an easy job. |
I still think this would be a good change. I don't think it's a must-have for 4.0, but would be nice. @deckar01 would you be interested in implementing this? |
this is part of what you're proposing in #1046, right? should we close this one and continue discussion in that issue? |
It is related, indeed. Could be a first step. Or we may want to deal with the whole thing in one go. No problem with closing this in favor of #1046. |
#788 was caused by confusion between
Field.serialize()
andField._serialize()
.Field.serialize()
plucks a value out of a schema level object and passes it on toField._serialize()
.Field.serialize()
is only used inMarshaller.serialize()
.I propose moving
Field.serialize()
toMarshaller.serialize_field()
andField.deserialize()
toMarshaller.deserialize_field()
to avoid this confusion.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: