OpenAPI Schema Generation #223
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ | ||
| import warnings | ||
|
|
||
| from django.contrib.gis.db import models | ||
| from rest_framework.schemas.openapi import AutoSchema | ||
| from rest_framework.utils import model_meta | ||
|
|
||
| from rest_framework_gis.fields import GeometrySerializerMethodField | ||
| from rest_framework_gis.serializers import GeoFeatureModelListSerializer, GeoFeatureModelSerializer | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class GeoFeatureAutoSchema(AutoSchema): | ||
| COORDINATES_SCHEMA_FOR_POINT = { | ||
| 'type': 'array', | ||
| 'items': { | ||
| 'type': 'number', | ||
| 'format': 'float', | ||
| }, | ||
| 'example': [12.9721, 77.5933], | ||
| 'minItems': 2, | ||
| 'maxItems': 3, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| COORDINATES_SCHEMA_FOR_LINE_STRING = { | ||
| 'type': 'array', | ||
| 'items': COORDINATES_SCHEMA_FOR_POINT, | ||
| 'example': [[22.4707, 70.0577], [12.9721, 77.5933]], | ||
| 'minItems': 2, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| GEO_FIELD_TO_SCHEMA = { | ||
| models.PointField: { | ||
| 'type': { | ||
| 'type': 'string', | ||
| 'enum': ['Point'], | ||
| }, | ||
| 'coordinates': COORDINATES_SCHEMA_FOR_POINT, | ||
| }, | ||
| models.LineStringField: { | ||
| 'type': { | ||
| 'type': 'string', | ||
| 'enum': ['LineString'], | ||
| }, | ||
| 'coordinates': COORDINATES_SCHEMA_FOR_LINE_STRING, | ||
| }, | ||
| models.PolygonField: { | ||
| 'type': { | ||
| 'type': 'string', | ||
| 'enum': ['LineString'], | ||
| }, | ||
| 'coordinates': { | ||
| 'type': 'array', | ||
| 'items': { | ||
| **COORDINATES_SCHEMA_FOR_LINE_STRING, | ||
| 'minItems': 4, | ||
| }, | ||
| 'minItems': 1, | ||
| 'example': [[[0.0, 0.0], [0.0, 1.0], [1.0, 1.0], [1.0, 0.0], [0.0, 0.0]], | ||
| [[0.4, 0.4], [0.4, 0.6], [0.6, 0.6], [0.6, 0.4], [0.4, 0.4]]] | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| MULTI_FIELD_MAPPING = { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. It looks like There was a problem hiding this comment. ping @dhaval-mehta . Still no "geometries" There was a problem hiding this comment. @jayvdb man, I am running very busy. I have just merged the latest code in my branch and resolved merge conflicts. There was a problem hiding this comment. 2-3 months? Do you mean after this PR is merged? Unless you have tests passing that include "geometries", it is very likely that merging this PR will cause problems for anyone using There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dhaval-mehta can you clear this concern please? There was a problem hiding this comment. @jayvdb Added support for GeometryCollectionField and GeometryField |
||
| models.PointField: models.MultiPointField, | ||
| models.LineStringField: models.MultiLineStringField, | ||
| models.PolygonField: models.MultiPolygonField | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| for singular_field, multi_field in MULTI_FIELD_MAPPING.items(): | ||
| GEO_FIELD_TO_SCHEMA[multi_field] = { | ||
| 'type': { | ||
| 'type': 'string', | ||
| 'enum': [multi_field.geom_class.__name__], | ||
| }, | ||
| 'coordinates': { | ||
| 'type': 'array', | ||
| 'items': GEO_FIELD_TO_SCHEMA[singular_field]['coordinates'], | ||
| 'minItems': 1, | ||
| 'example': [ | ||
| GEO_FIELD_TO_SCHEMA[singular_field]['coordinates']['example'], | ||
| GEO_FIELD_TO_SCHEMA[singular_field]['coordinates']['example'] | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| def _map_geo_field(self, serializer, geo_field_name): | ||
| field = serializer.fields[geo_field_name] | ||
| if isinstance(field, GeometrySerializerMethodField): | ||
| warnings.warn('Geometry generation for GeometrySerializerMethodField is not supported.'.format(field=field)) | ||
| return {} | ||
|
|
||
| if field.source: | ||
| model_field_name = field.source | ||
| else: | ||
| model_field_name = geo_field_name | ||
|
|
||
| geo_field = model_meta.get_field_info(serializer.Meta.model).fields[model_field_name] | ||
| try: | ||
| return self.GEO_FIELD_TO_SCHEMA[geo_field.__class__] | ||
| except KeyError: | ||
| warnings.warn('Geometry generation for {field} is not supported.'.format(field=field)) | ||
| return {} | ||
|
|
||
| def _map_field(self, field): | ||
| if isinstance(field, GeoFeatureModelListSerializer): | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. this looks incorrect. Anyway, I needed this when using spatialite, which may be a bit different under the cover than the postgres driver. I have a travis build https://travis-ci.org/github/jayvdb/django-rest-framework-gis/jobs/682327850 and There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have a look at line no 364 of rest_framework/schemas/openapi.py There was a problem hiding this comment.
Line no 369 of |
||
| return self._map_geo_feature_model_list_serializer(field) | ||
|
|
||
| return super()._map_field(field) | ||
|
|
||
| def _map_geo_feature_model_list_serializer(self, serializer): | ||
| return { | ||
| 'type': 'object', | ||
| 'properties': { | ||
| 'type': { | ||
| 'type': 'string', | ||
| 'enum': ['FeatureCollection'] | ||
| }, | ||
| 'features': { | ||
| 'type': 'array', | ||
| 'items': self._map_serializer(serializer.child) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| def _map_geo_feature_model_serializer(self, serializer): | ||
| schema = super()._map_serializer(serializer) | ||
|
|
||
| geo_json_schema = { | ||
| 'type': 'object', | ||
| 'properties': { | ||
| 'type': { | ||
| 'type': 'string', | ||
| 'enum': ['Feature'] | ||
| }, | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if serializer.Meta.id_field: | ||
| geo_json_schema['properties']['id'] = schema['properties'].pop(serializer.Meta.id_field) | ||
|
|
||
| geo_field = serializer.Meta.geo_field | ||
| geo_json_schema['properties']['geometry'] = { | ||
| 'type': 'object', | ||
| 'properties': self._map_geo_field(serializer, geo_field), | ||
| } | ||
| schema['properties'].pop(geo_field) | ||
|
|
||
| if serializer.Meta.auto_bbox or serializer.Meta.bbox_geo_field: | ||
| geo_json_schema['properties']['bbox'] = { | ||
| 'type': 'array', | ||
| 'minItems': 4, | ||
| 'maxItems': 4, | ||
| 'example': [12.9721, 77.5933, 12.9721, 77.5933], | ||
| } | ||
| if serializer.Meta.bbox_geo_field in schema: | ||
| schema.pop(serializer.Meta.bbox_geo_field) | ||
|
|
||
| geo_json_schema['properties']['properties'] = schema | ||
|
|
||
| return geo_json_schema | ||
|
|
||
| def map_serializer(self, serializer): | ||
dhaval-mehta marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| if isinstance(serializer, GeoFeatureModelListSerializer): | ||
| return self._map_geo_feature_model_list_serializer(serializer) | ||
|
|
||
| if isinstance(serializer, GeoFeatureModelSerializer): | ||
| return self._map_geo_feature_model_serializer(serializer) | ||
|
|
||
| return super()._map_serializer(serializer) | ||
|
|
||
| def _map_serializer(self, serializer): | ||
| return self.map_serializer(serializer) | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ | ||
| # Generated by Django 3.0.4 on 2020-04-03 06:52 | ||
|
|
||
| import django.contrib.gis.db.models.fields | ||
| from django.db import migrations, models | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class Migration(migrations.Migration): | ||
|
|
||
| dependencies = [ | ||
| ('django_restframework_gis_tests', '0002_nullable'), | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| operations = [ | ||
| migrations.CreateModel( | ||
| name='LineStringModel', | ||
| fields=[ | ||
| ('id', models.AutoField(auto_created=True, primary_key=True, serialize=False, verbose_name='ID')), | ||
| ('random_field1', models.CharField(max_length=32)), | ||
| ('random_field2', models.IntegerField()), | ||
| ('points', django.contrib.gis.db.models.fields.LineStringField(srid=4326)), | ||
| ], | ||
| options={ | ||
| 'abstract': False, | ||
| }, | ||
| ), | ||
| migrations.CreateModel( | ||
| name='MultiLineStringModel', | ||
| fields=[ | ||
| ('id', models.AutoField(auto_created=True, primary_key=True, serialize=False, verbose_name='ID')), | ||
| ('random_field1', models.CharField(max_length=32)), | ||
| ('random_field2', models.IntegerField()), | ||
| ('points', django.contrib.gis.db.models.fields.MultiLineStringField(srid=4326)), | ||
| ], | ||
| options={ | ||
| 'abstract': False, | ||
| }, | ||
| ), | ||
| migrations.CreateModel( | ||
| name='MultiPointModel', | ||
| fields=[ | ||
| ('id', models.AutoField(auto_created=True, primary_key=True, serialize=False, verbose_name='ID')), | ||
| ('random_field1', models.CharField(max_length=32)), | ||
| ('random_field2', models.IntegerField()), | ||
| ('points', django.contrib.gis.db.models.fields.MultiPointField(srid=4326)), | ||
| ], | ||
| options={ | ||
| 'abstract': False, | ||
| }, | ||
| ), | ||
| migrations.CreateModel( | ||
| name='MultiPolygonModel', | ||
| fields=[ | ||
| ('id', models.AutoField(auto_created=True, primary_key=True, serialize=False, verbose_name='ID')), | ||
| ('random_field1', models.CharField(max_length=32)), | ||
| ('random_field2', models.IntegerField()), | ||
| ('polygon', django.contrib.gis.db.models.fields.MultiPolygonField(srid=4326)), | ||
| ], | ||
| options={ | ||
| 'abstract': False, | ||
| }, | ||
| ), | ||
| migrations.CreateModel( | ||
| name='PointModel', | ||
| fields=[ | ||
| ('id', models.AutoField(auto_created=True, primary_key=True, serialize=False, verbose_name='ID')), | ||
| ('random_field1', models.CharField(max_length=32)), | ||
| ('random_field2', models.IntegerField()), | ||
| ('location', django.contrib.gis.db.models.fields.PointField(srid=4326)), | ||
| ], | ||
| options={ | ||
| 'abstract': False, | ||
| }, | ||
| ), | ||
| migrations.CreateModel( | ||
| name='PolygonModel', | ||
| fields=[ | ||
| ('id', models.AutoField(auto_created=True, primary_key=True, serialize=False, verbose_name='ID')), | ||
| ('random_field1', models.CharField(max_length=32)), | ||
| ('random_field2', models.IntegerField()), | ||
| ('polygon', django.contrib.gis.db.models.fields.PolygonField(srid=4326)), | ||
| ], | ||
| options={ | ||
| 'abstract': False, | ||
| }, | ||
| ), | ||
| ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Requiring users to set REST_FRAMEWORK.DEFAULT_SCHEMA_CLASS to a custom GIS specific class will limit the utility of this. The default DRF schema generator is rarely used for serious projects because there are so many unsolved problems in it. Most medium to large projects will use drf-yasg, or similar (including drf-spectacular which is new but quite good), and they use their own mechanism, either requiring that DEFAULT_SCHEMA_CLASS is set to their own class, or they ignore DEFAULT_SCHEMA_CLASS altogether. And many projects need to sub-class DRF's AutoSchema to add their own behaviour. I've tried to do a WIP for drf-spectacular to use the standard AutoSchema inheritance at tfranzel/drf-spectacular#46 , but it has has some curly problems.
Keeping GeoFeatureAutoSchema is ok, but it would be better as a thin wrapper only, using functionality that exists outside of the class.
i.e. the schemas and functions that are embedded here inside this class should be in the module namespace, so they can be used with other generators. The code in this custom AutoSchema only uses
self.to reference the new code below -- it doesnt rely on any of the inner workings of DRF AutoSchema.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
_. I think it is a clear instruction to others, not to use these methods. Also, this is an unreviewed code. I have already requested @auvipy to review this code.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have no comment on DRF master. I expected released versions of DRF to be usable, and in this case it isnt. Usually the problem is that it falls apart when an installable app using DRF isnt 'perfect', which is 80%+ of the time, and often they are slowly maintained, so it will be a long time before they will work - usually it is exceptions all over the place.
While drf-yasg is openapi 2.0, it is usable for most people, and they dont care much about v2 vs v3
I am not saying that drf-gis shouldnt provide a AutoSchema class. I just hope that the core functionality of this PR is outside of the AutoSchema class, and the AutoSchema class is a thin wrapper. Especially the schema definitions, which are first class entities that drf-gis should expose.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have noted down your points. @auvipy Eagerly waiting for your review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm actually waiting for drf 3.12 release and celery 4.4.3[due by 5th of may]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @auvipy for the quick reply.
I have added a lot of extra code to make it compatible with DRF 3.10 and 3.11.
Should I remove that code and make schema generation only compatible with DRF 3.12?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
DRF 3.10 can be removed without any hesitation!