codecov[bot]
commented
1 year ago Codecov Report
Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.
Comparison is base (
9f0c956) 100.00% compared to head (750e57a) 100.00%.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #117 +/- ## ========================================= Coverage 100.00% 100.00% ========================================= Files 13 13 Lines 446 448 +2 ========================================= + Hits 446 448 +2 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | celery | `85.26% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | cleanup | `85.93% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | dj4.1 | `85.93% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | dj4.2 | `85.93% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | dramatiq | `85.26% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | drf | `93.97% <100.00%> (+0.02%)` | :arrow_up: | | macos-latest | `86.16% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | py3.10 | `85.93% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | py3.8 | `85.93% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | py3.9 | `85.93% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | ubuntu-latest | `85.93% <0.00%> (-0.39%)` | :arrow_down: | | windows-latest | `78.23% <0.00%> (-0.54%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Johannes+Maron#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Impacted Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/codingjoe/django-pictures/pull/117?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Johannes+Maron) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [pictures/contrib/rest\_framework.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/codingjoe/django-pictures/pull/117?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Johannes+Maron#diff-cGljdHVyZXMvY29udHJpYi9yZXN0X2ZyYW1ld29yay5weQ==) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | |:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
Related object fields have a source notation with a dot separator in DRF, like:
related_object.field. However, this is not suitable for a GET query parameter prefix, since the internal model structure is not exposed via the API, not should it. Using the field name, is the expected and documented behavior. Therefore, this doesn't qualify as a breaking change, but bugfix.