Add GeoJSON attachment params to EXPORT_OPTIONS #2757
Conversation
FrankApiyo
changed the title
FrankApiyo
changed the title
FrankApiyo
force-pushed
the
fix-2752
branch
5 times, most recently
from
affcf0c to
db854a3
Compare
| get_query_params_from_metadata(metadata), | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| metadata.delete() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@FrankApiyo Instead of deleting and creating a new MetaData object, we can update metadata.extra_data then do metadata.refresh_from_db()
| @@ -349,6 +401,50 @@ def test_should_not_create_new_export_when_old_exists(self): | |||
| Export.objects.get(xform=self.xform).options, | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| # New metadata will yield a new export | |||
| metadata.delete() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@FrankApiyo Will updating metadata.extra_data suffice instead of deleting and creating a new one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whenever you create a new linked dataset, a new metadata object is created; So creating a new metadata object more closely simulates what happens in production. (as compared to editing an existing metadata object)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@FrankApiyo Noted. Though l believe since this is a unit test and not an integration test, we should only be interested in the metadata passed to custom_response_handler and not the larger context of how the MetaData object is used
ukanga
changed the title
| }, | ||
| object_id=self.xform.id, | ||
| ) | ||
| _response = custom_response_handler( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like the variable _response is unused
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This _response variables might provide some implicit documentation by telling you that this custom_reponse_handler returns a response object
Changes / Features implemented
EXPORT_OPTIONSfor GeoJSON exportsSteps taken to verify this change does what is intended
Side effects of implementing this change
N/A
Before submitting this PR for review, please make sure you have:
Closes #2752