Add two new methods for storing JSON extra_data in the API.

Review Request #9271 — Created Oct. 16, 2017 and submitted

Information

Review Board
release-3.0.x
8171038...

Reviewers

Our extra_data support in the API has previously been limited to
storing primitive values (strings, booleans, integers) associated with
top-level keys. It didn't allow for any complex JSON data.

This change introduces two new methods for storing and managing more
complex JSON data. Clients can now set the extra_data:json field in
POST or PUT to a serialized JSON Merge Patch, which is a JSON document
that will be merged into the root of extra_data. Keys mapped to
dictionaries in the document will merge the dictionary from the JSON
Merge Patch. Arrays will replace arrays. Any key set to None will
remove that key from the dictionary. This is a pretty good,
straight-forward way of working with JSON data.

For more advanced usage, clients can set extra_data:json-patch to a
JSON Patch document, which is a list of operations to perform on
extra_data. This allows for setting entire JSON structures on
dictionary keys, at the end of an array, or even at specific array
indices. Operations can remove parts of the JSON document, copy/move
data. They can also sanity-check the presence of existing data, aborting
the entire patch if not present.

Both forms of patches prevent replacing the entire root resource itself
(though every key can be specifically deleted), so that clients don't
accidentally remove all state. They also obey any access restrictions
imposed by extensions, preventing reading from private parts of a tree
and writing to private/read-only parts of a tree. Keys with double
underscores (__keyname) are also still supported, and can occur at any
level of the tree.

Documentation on all of this will be added in a future change.

Unit tests pass.

Manually tested that both forms of patching work.

Description From Last Updated

F821 undefined name 'e'

reviewbotreviewbot

Seems like we should return an error in the negative case.

daviddavid

Docs here look fine but should probably be pushed as a separate commit.

daviddavid

Having an empty PUT seems like we're no longer exercising some code that we used to.

daviddavid

Having an empty PUT seems like we're no longer exercising some code that we used to.

daviddavid
Checks run (1 failed, 1 succeeded)
flake8 failed.
JSHint passed.

flake8

chipx86
david
  1. 
      
  2. reviewboard/webapi/base.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     
     

    Seems like we should return an error in the negative case.

  3. reviewboard/webapi/resources/base_review.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Docs here look fine but should probably be pushed as a separate commit.

    1. Oops, this was meant to be its own commit.

  4. Having an empty PUT seems like we're no longer exercising some code that we used to.

  5. Having an empty PUT seems like we're no longer exercising some code that we used to.

  6. 
      
chipx86
david
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
chipx86
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Pushed to release-3.0.x (b989f23)
Loading...