Can you add the test as well please (for a write in a serialized field too)?
Could I propose to rename 'keys' to 'fields'?
I think we can have a more clever fix for not much work. I'm maybe wrong without investigating further, but I'm sure you'll stop me in such case ;-)
If we write directly in a serialized field, we know the fields we are writing on.
I would propose to:
Fire vals.keys() + serialized.keys(), unless if '__do_not_fire_serialized' is present in the context. '__do_not_fire_serialized' has to be put in the context given to the `write_original` method.
Thus,
* if we write directly to sparse fields -> ok because the many writes on the serialized will be skipped due to the presence of the sentinel '__do_not_fire_serialized'
* If we write directly to a serialized field -> ok because the fields keys will be present in the first fire
Hi,
Thanks for your MP.
Can you add the test as well please (for a write in a serialized field too)?
Could I propose to rename 'keys' to 'fields'?
I think we can have a more clever fix for not much work. I'm maybe wrong without investigating further, but I'm sure you'll stop me in such case ;-)
If we write directly in a serialized field, we know the fields we are writing on. fire_serialized ' is present in the context. '__do_not_ fire_serialized ' has to be put in the context given to the `write_original` method.
I would propose to:
Fire vals.keys() + serialized.keys(), unless if '__do_not_
Thus, fire_serialized '
* if we write directly to sparse fields -> ok because the many writes on the serialized will be skipped due to the presence of the sentinel '__do_not_
* If we write directly to a serialized field -> ok because the fields keys will be present in the first fire