Skip to content
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

Add blueprint for drf-extra-fields Base64FileField #583

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 28, 2021
Merged

Add blueprint for drf-extra-fields Base64FileField #583

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 28, 2021

Conversation

johnthagen
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #579

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 19, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #583 (6c4c2f1) into master (59f9749) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #583   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.80%   98.80%           
=======================================
  Files          58       58           
  Lines        6702     6702           
=======================================
  Hits         6622     6622           
  Misses         80       80           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 59f9749...6c4c2f1. Read the comment docs.

@johnthagen johnthagen marked this pull request as ready for review October 19, 2021 17:49
@tfranzel
Copy link
Owner

do you think there are other fields that could be useful there? in theory it is common enough to warrant actual integration, though download statistics suggest that it not used that often anymore.

@johnthagen
Copy link
Contributor Author

I personally have only used the Base64 fields, but find them very handy. The repo has almost 500 stars and is actively maintained, so that's a plus.

I'm not sure if it warrants official support or not. On the other hand, the other fields might not even require extra schema handling (they may keep everything the same type but just change the representation), so it could end up being easy?

I think your call on integration.

@tfranzel
Copy link
Owner

if you are interested in doing the integration, I would certainly accept the PR. Personally I lack the time atm. Otherwise, we merge this PR and add integration to the backlog.

Things to consider:

  • have a look at the contrib tests to see how contrib packages are tested.
  • check if other fields require extensions.

@johnthagen
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tfranzel I'd say let's merge this PR so that others have the blueprint in the short term and add integration to the backlog. I'm not sure if I have the time currently to work on integration, so I wouldn't want to block others having a solution for now

@tfranzel tfranzel merged commit 56d720d into tfranzel:master Oct 28, 2021
@johnthagen johnthagen deleted the patch-2 branch October 28, 2021 11:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add extension blueprint for drf-extra-fields Base64FileField
2 participants