You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Description
I am trying to get a subresource collection w/out pagination and in the same time I want the parent resource to have pagination.
Pagination is enabled globally.
I was left with the impression that disabling for a specific resource by doing
#[ApiResource(paginationEnabled: false)]
does not allow querying for a paginated collection with that resource.
However, I've been banging my head against the wall for a whole day. What basically happens is the paginationEnabled setting propagates to the child (or I've got something completely wrong).
How to reproduce
Case 1 - pagination enabled globally, parent has no pagination setting (i.e., defaults to enabled), child has paginationEnabled set to false:
Am I reading the docs wrong? Pagination settings on an ApiResource should only affect this resource, not propagate down to sub resources (at least this is how I remember things worked in 2.6.x). Or maybe I am not using the correct syntax? I believe I tried everything I could think of.
Additional Context
Is this the intended operation? Seems completely counterintuitive to have pagination settings propagate to subresources. Is it even supposed to propagate? I thought the paginationEnabled setting is supposed to apply to the ApiResource / Class, not affect subresources? From the control case I can see that basically this setting only applies to sub resources. If this is the intended effect, documentation needs to be more verbose, as this is completely different from how I remember 2.6 worked.
I also tried putting the paginationEnabled directive here:
API Platform version(s) affected: 3.0
Description
I am trying to get a subresource collection w/out pagination and in the same time I want the parent resource to have pagination.
Pagination is enabled globally.
I was left with the impression that disabling for a specific resource by doing
#[ApiResource(paginationEnabled: false)]
does not allow querying for a paginated collection with that resource.
However, I've been banging my head against the wall for a whole day. What basically happens is the paginationEnabled setting propagates to the child (or I've got something completely wrong).
How to reproduce
Case 1 - pagination enabled globally, parent has no pagination setting (i.e., defaults to enabled), child has paginationEnabled set to false:
Parent:
#[ApiResource()]
Child (ManyToMany):
Result: pagination is enabled on Child when queried for through parent.
Case 2 (complete opposite) - pagination enabled globally, parent has pagination disabled, child has paginationEnabled set to true:
Parent:
#[ApiResource(paginationEnabled: false)]
Child (ManyToMany):
Result: Child is NOT paginated.
Case 3 (control) - pagination disabled globally, parent has no explicit setting, child has paginationEnabled set to true:
Parent:
#[ApiResource()]
Child (ManyToMany):
Result: Child is NOT paginated.
Possible Solution
Am I reading the docs wrong? Pagination settings on an ApiResource should only affect this resource, not propagate down to sub resources (at least this is how I remember things worked in 2.6.x). Or maybe I am not using the correct syntax? I believe I tried everything I could think of.
Additional Context
Is this the intended operation? Seems completely counterintuitive to have pagination settings propagate to subresources. Is it even supposed to propagate? I thought the paginationEnabled setting is supposed to apply to the ApiResource / Class, not affect subresources? From the control case I can see that basically this setting only applies to sub resources. If this is the intended effect, documentation needs to be more verbose, as this is completely different from how I remember 2.6 worked.
I also tried putting the paginationEnabled directive here:
Same results.
Finally, I triple-checked and in production on 2.6.x the 'pagination_enabled' setting set through annotations (via 'attributes') works as expected.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: