The main purpose here is discuss if a name definition should be really presumed to exist on migrations/serializers/schema template.
Today, when we use scaffold to generate an endpoint/model/schema/serializer its schema presumes that an attribute name should be serialized, but that attribute is not included on the migration neither on the serializer.
So, when we run the acceptance test, an InvalidResponse error is raised with the message #: failed schema #/definitions/[schema_name]: "name" wasn't supplied.
The first question is: should a name attribute really be expected by the schema?
The second question is: if the schema expect the existence of a name attribute, why it is not included on the template for migrations and serializer?
The main purpose here is discuss if a name definition should be really presumed to exist on migrations/serializers/schema template.
Today, when we use scaffold to generate an endpoint/model/schema/serializer its schema presumes that an attribute name should be serialized, but that attribute is not included on the migration neither on the serializer.
So, when we run the acceptance test, an InvalidResponse error is raised with the message
#: failed schema #/definitions/[schema_name]: "name" wasn't supplied.The first question is: should a name attribute really be expected by the schema?
The second question is: if the schema expect the existence of a name attribute, why it is not included on the template for migrations and serializer?