only client-requested sparse fieldsets are exception to full linkage requirement #1615
Conversation
…requirement The current wording could be misunderstood that also fields excluded by the server if client does _not_ request a sparse fieldset are an exception for full linkage requirement. This changes clarifies that only exception is if a client _explicilty_ requested a sparse fieldset, which does not include a relationship required for full linkage.
|
I think this does address the question I had in #1614. I might recommend using "specified by" instead of "requested by" the client, or even "specified in the client request"? But I think it's OK as written, too, if you have a strong feeling about it. |
I don't have strong feelings about. Personally I feel it could be confusing to use the term "specify" in a specification for something else than the specification itself. But I'm not a native speaker. Will leave this one for editors to decide. |
|
I think this wording is fine. The important clarification here is that the client is in control of the request. |
|
can we expect a RC 4 soon? it's been 16 months a lot of PR merged in the mean time |
|
links": { "self": "http://example.com/posts" } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
links": { "related": { "href": "http://example.com/articles/1/comments", "meta": { "count": 10 } } }
|
@jonatanlr98 This is merged and your comments are without context. Open a new issue or PR if you have issues with this. |
The current wording could be misunderstood that also fields excluded by the server if client does not request a sparse fieldset are an exception for full linkage requirement. This changes clarifies that only exception is if a client explicilty requested a sparse fieldset, which does not include a relationship required for full linkage.
Closes #1614