bug: referenced_list field (ng-admin v0.8.0)

[karantan]

When I reported #552 issue I figure it that it only appears in 0.8.0 version. So now I'm using 0.7.0 version and with this I found another bug in 0.8.0. Before I moved to 0.7.0 I just taught that my code is the problem but when I switched to 0.7.0 this started to work.

So the bug is with listing one-many relations. Like Post and Comments. I have this code:

nga.field('article', 'referenced_list')
  .targetEntity(article)
  .targetReferenceField('user_id')
  .targetField(nga.field('id')),

In 0.7.0 this lists related articles to the user. It is just like in the example page... In 0.8.0 there is no error and you see only empty space

[karantan]

In 0.7.0 with referenced_list .targetReferenceField function isn't working. It always shows all the entities that you receive via the query. It does not filter them and assign only th

[fzaninotto]

On the demo, I can see related comments to a given post, using the master version (see http://ng-admin.marmelab.com/#/posts/show/1). It seems to work on my side, I can't reproduce your issue.

[denkhaus]

I have the same issue. Its obvious since commit "5e16a3c30ec5ce6f913a1dd7d393d2397a30fbd3"
introduced with the new filter ui. Btw, the demo you mentioned, has the old filters style.

[karantan]

OK so if I understand this targetReferenceField only sets the 'name' to the e.g. post_id. If targetReferenceField is not called key of post_id will be null.

example:

...
.targetReferenceField('user')
...

will produce GET:

"http://127.0.0.1:1337/post?_filters=%7B%22user%22:%22559be50f90d212803ba5f2e5%22%7D&_page=1&_perPage=30&_sortField=null"

and if I do not set .targetReferenceField('user') ng-admin will do the next GET req:

"http://127.0.0.1:1337/post?_filters=%7B%22null%22:%22559be50f90d212803ba5f2e5%22%7D&_page=1&_perPage=30&_sortField=null"

The differece is with user and null in _filter param. Is this intended or is it a bug?

If this is intended then this means that the filtering should be done on the server side which is OK. I just think this should be stated somewhere.