Avoid AttributeError for PUT and PATCH methods when using APIView

[bpleshakov]

Fixes silenced AttributeError in the case when lookup_url_kwarg doesn't exist in a view

Description of the Change

Checklist

• PR only contains one change (considered splitting up PR)
• unit-test added
• documentation updated
• CHANGELOG.md updated (only for user relevant changes)
• author name in AUTHORS

[sliverc]

As lookup_field and lookup_url_kwarg are set in GenericAPIView can you give an example in what case a lookup field is actually not set?

[bpleshakov]

@sliverc both of these fields aren't set whenever you use default APIView. It is a valid DRF behavior.

UPD: I think I should explain a little bit more. Nothing stops a user to define APIView whatever they want and set DRF-JA JSONParser and JSONRenderer to obtain JSON-API endpoint without an underlying model using some plain serializer. It is not a common case, but we have this usage in our product.

The problem here is that AttributeError you supposed to expect here is caught by DRF request proxy without any notification and unfortunately there is nothing we can do with such behavior.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #778 into master will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #778      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.16%   97.21%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          55       55              
  Lines        2825     2874      +49     
==========================================
+ Hits         2745     2794      +49     
  Misses         80       80              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
example/tests/test_parsers.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
rest_framework_json_api/parsers.py	97.43% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5f19ef0...fc9c390. Read the comment docs.

[sliverc]

That makes sense. Could you follow up by adding a test and changelog entry then? Thanks.

[sliverc]

Thanks. This looks good.