Store empty list instead of unset - #2517
Closed
bagerard wants to merge 5 commits into
Closed
Conversation
…both the changed_fields and the unset_fields
|
any new developments regarding this? |
|
Will this PR be merged soon? Storing an empty list instead of performing an unset operation would be optimal for consistency |
Collaborator
Author
|
got re-implemented in a better way in #2928 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently, if you set a ListField to an empty list, it unset it in the database instead of storing an empty list.
This is bad because it creates inconsistencies which can lead to confusion in queries
Fixes #267
Fixes #761
Relates to #2342