Django REST Framework nested resource key "id" unaccessible

Question

So I have the following Structure:

A ClientFile belongs to an Owner (class name = Contact). I'm trying to create a Clientfile using the API. The request contains the following data:

{
  name: "Hello!"
  owner: {
    id: 1,
    first_name: "Charlie",
    last_name: "Watson"
  }
}

I created the serializer according to my structure. Hoping that this API call would create a clientfile with the name "Hello!" and Contact id 1 as the owner:

class ContactSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
  class Meta:
    model = Contact
    fields = (
      'id',
      'first_name',
      'last_name',
    )

class ClientfileSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):

  owner = ContactSerializer(read_only=False)

  class Meta():
    model = Clientfile
    fields = (
      'id',
      'name',
      'owner',
    )

  def create(self, validated_data):

    owner = Contact.objects.get(pk=validated_data['owner']['id'])

I do get into the create method. However, the only field I need (['owner']['id']) is not accessible. If I do print ['owner']['first_name'] it does return 'Charlie'. But the ID for some reasons doesn't seem to be accessible...

Any reasons why this can be happening? Am i missing something? (I'm new to Django)

SOLUTION: Just found out that the reason why ID didn't show in the first place was because I had to declare it in the fields like so: Hope this helps.

class ContactSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):

  id = serializers.IntegerField() # ← Here

  class Meta:
    model = Contact
    fields = (
      'id',
      'first_name',
      'last_name',
    )

ptim · Accepted Answer · 2016-04-06 00:39:34Z

18

In Django REST Framework AutoField fields (those that are automatically generated) are defaulted to read-only. From the docs:

read_only

Set this to True to ensure that the field is used when serializing a representation, but is not used when creating or updating an instance during deserialization.

Defaults to False

You can see this by inspecting your serializer by printing the representation in your shell:

serializer = ClientfileSerializer()
print repr(serializer)

You can override this by setting read_only=False against the id field in the extra_kwargs:

class ContactSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
  class Meta:
    model = Contact
    fields = (
      'id',
      'first_name',
      'last_name',
    )
    extra_kwargs = {'id': {'read_only': False}}

class ClientfileSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):

  owner = ContactSerializer(read_only=False)

  class Meta():
    model = Clientfile
    fields = (
      'id',
      'name',
      'owner',
    )
    extra_kwargs = {'id': {'read_only': False}}

edited Apr 6, 2016 at 0:39

ptim

15.8k10 gold badges87 silver badges106 bronze badges

answered Mar 15, 2015 at 21:47

br3w5

4,6336 gold badges35 silver badges42 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

3 Comments

gkpo Over a year ago

I tried it. It fixes the problem but creates another one: Now I can't create a contact. It throws an error saying that the ID field is required...

br3w5 Over a year ago

Have you tried applying read-only to the id field for the clientfileserializer too?

Sem Over a year ago

I'm having the same issue as @MonsieurNinja, this makes the id required to be set manually.

gkpo · Accepted Answer · 2015-03-17 00:17:28Z

Alright so I found a different approach that works. I added an IntegerField serializer for the owner relation. I also had to set the owner relation to read_only=True.

This is the json I am sending via POST:

{
  name: "Hello!"
  owner_id: 1
}

This is my serializer:

class ClientfileSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):

  owner_id = serializers.IntegerField()
  owner = ContactSerializer(read_only=True)

  class Meta():
    model = Clientfile
    fields = (
      'id',
      'owner_id',
      'owner',
    )

It seems less cool than the first way, but it does the job. Plus I don't want to create a new owner, but just select one that is already in the database. So maybe it's more semantic to only have the ID and not the full set of information posted via Json.

user3900778 · Accepted Answer · 2016-01-28 18:59:11Z

3

You can try something like this:

class YourModelSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):

    class Meta:
        model = YourModel
        fields = ('id', 'field1', 'field2')

    def to_internal_value(self, data):
        """
        Dict of native values <- Dict of primitive datatypes.
        Add instance key to values if `id` present in primitive dict
        :param data:
        """
        obj = super(YourModelSerializer, self).to_internal_value(data)
        instance_id = data.get('id', None)
        if instance_id:
            obj['instance'] = YourModel.objects.get(id=instance_id)
        return obj

Then in serializer validated data you should have "instance" key if request.data has "id" key.

Also You can add just "id" instead of full instance/object.

answered Jan 28, 2016 at 18:59

user3900778

2274 silver badges14 bronze badges

1 Comment

Moulde Over a year ago

This seems to solve the issue of the missing id in validated_data, without any side effects like when setting the id field to not readonly. (Causes it to be required, even when creating new objects that doesnt have an id yet)

Mohammad Faisal · Accepted Answer · 2020-11-22 05:00:46Z

0

The top voted answer does solve the issue but it raises a new one as mentioned in the comments we can no longer create a new record as it will thrown ac exception saying is required. We can set id to required=False then id will be available in validated_data and it wont be required to set it manually

id = serializers.IntegerField(required=False) <- Like this

class Meta:
    model = Details
    fields = ('id', 'product_name', 'description', 'specification', 'make_model',
              'brand', 'quantity',)

answered Nov 22, 2020 at 5:00

Mohammad Faisal

7037 silver badges13 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Django REST Framework nested resource key "id" unaccessible

4 Answers 4

3 Comments

Comments

1 Comment

Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

4 Answers 4

3 Comments

Comments

1 Comment

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related