Allow relationships without "data" object

[josephmcdermott]

From what I can see, the inclusion of relationships in this library will always result in the addition of:

• a data object within the relationships object
• the included object being populated

I am trying to implement a billboard response like this:

{
    "data": {
        "type": "home",
        "id": "1",
        "links": {
            "self": "http://api.example.com"
        },
        "relationships": {
            "products": {
                "links": {
                    "related": "http://api.example.com/products"
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

Notice the above does not contain relationships:products:data, which is intentional. It also does not contain the included section at the bottom.

From what I can gather, your implementation of relationships assumes there will always be some data, is that correct? I am hoping I have missed something and there is an easy way to achieve the above.

[vinkla]

What does the specification say about this?

[neomerx]

The spec says

A "relationship object" MUST contain at least one of the following: links, data, meta

So just links is fine. As for links the spec says

links: a links object containing at least one of the following: self, related

So just related is fine as well.

[neomerx]

@josephmcdermott the related value should rather be http://api.example.com/home/1/products and type name home should probably be changed as well.

There is an easy way to achieve this but ...

Btw vinkla I still regret you didn't join. With all my truly respect to you.

[josephmcdermott]

Yes, as you stated the example I've posted does conform to JSON API specification. Your point about /home/1/products is an interesting one, since I am not actually trying to represent a relationship to the homepage, I am simply trying to represent "here is where to go next to find all of the main starting points of this API", namely products in this example. (I started this discussion on JSON API forum: http://discuss.jsonapi.org/t/how-to-format-a-rest-api-billboard-homepage-response/384

@neomerx what is the 'easy way' to achieve this? Is the answer to not use this library? :)

[josephmcdermott]

As per the above comment, I have submitted a PR with a simple fix to allow this.

[samgreenwood]

This looks like exactly what I'm looking for, what are you doing to add the relationship to the Resource as the code relies on it being included at the moment.

[tobyzerner]

Closed with the merge of #85

[tobyzerner]

Can anyone tell me regarding semver if this is a breaking change or not? Does it warrant a bump to 0.3? If someone were to be extending the Relationship class, this might break their code... maybe the Relationship class (and other classes?) should be made final?

[tobyzerner]

/cc @franzliedke

[franzliedke]

Technically it definitely breaks BC. Given how many changes have been made, 0.3 makes sense, I'd say.

Making some of these classes final sounds like a logical step, too.

[tobyzerner]

Alright, thanks, I will prepare a 0.3 release soon :)