actually use USER_ID_FIELD in some places it wasnt used #789
Conversation
This file contains 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
obayemi
force-pushed
the
feature/consistent-er-uids
branch
from
6f38ad1
to
11ebd83
Compare
obayemi
force-pushed
the
feature/consistent-er-uids
branch
from
11ebd83
to
030ad87
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Make usage of USER_ID_FIELD more consistent
right now using an id that is not strictly the
pkfield make email templates fail because they follow the USER_ID_FIELD, while the endpoints expect strictly a pk without regard to theUSER_ID_FIELDconfigured in the settings.it "may" be a breaking change, but it should be a lot more correct, so I'm not completely sure wether or not you should merge this (at least I needed it for my project, and it would be easier for me to merge this rather than have to maintain a fork)