Stuck on an issue?

Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.

And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.

HttpResponse has no 'data' on 0.4.0

See original GitHub issue

Hey guys, just tried updating to 0.4.0 and it broke all my tests.

Whenever I do a GET to a filtered cached list, I run the following test to check wether the amount of objects returned is ok:

self.assertEqual(
    response.data['count'],
    3
)

But now I get the following error:

AttributeError: 'HttpResponse' object has no attribute 'data'

Django is 1.11.15, DRF is 3.8.2 and Python is 3.6 (haven’t changed their versions, just drf-extensions).

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Forgot to mention this is a cached list.

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 5 years ago
Comments:10 (4 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

1reaction

codingjoecommented, Sep 24, 2018

Sorry I need to call for a bit more caution here. Some like – my company included – may already use the improved cache feature. If you revert it now, that could be considered a breaking change as well 😉

@mbaragiola to give you a bit more context. Caching a DRF response as is pickling the whole object is not a good idea. The DRF response object is too large and can even include whole Querysets. The change that I introduced only caches the actual HTTP response and forgets everything else.

Form a user perspective this change it totally acceptable and we experienced a >100x improvement on delivery time as well as memory footprint on our caching servers. So this really only breaks your tests, because you assume the response to be a DRF response.

I see only possible solutions here, we document that the cache features will return regular HTTPResponses and make sure it is consistent. You will need to adapt your tests then.

“Breaking” the cache again, by blowing it up seems not reasonable to me. I also don’t really see a way to cache the original DRF response in a way that satisfies the main need of a cache: To be fast.

That is of course only my opinion, but I hope it explains my reasoning a bit better.

1reaction

auvipycommented, Sep 19, 2018

@codingjoe I also think since it’s an extension of drf, we should be able to do so, since its a breaking change, I think if there isn’t any workaround for it, we should revert the change. do you have any drfish solution in mind?