Hello @keshav-space ,@pombredanne I was working on adding severities into the affectedbypackage API response, and everything is displaying correctly in the APIv2. However, when running tests, I encountered five failing test cases, mainly due to:

1)### Query Count Mismatch:

Tests like test_filter_packages_by_purl and test_list_packages are expecting more queries(+1) than what is now executed.

This is happening because we needed to prefetch severities, which introduced one additional query. I tried it with select_related() and modified the serialiizer logic, but the test cases still failing .

2)### Assertion Errors in API Response:

Tests like test_lookup_with_valid_purl and test_list_packages fail because the response now includes "severities": [],

As the additional query is essential for fetching severities , i believe we should update the test cased to Adjust the expected query count and to Modify assertions to account for severities in the API response.

Do you agree with updating the tests? or do you have any other/alternative suggestions? Let me know how to proceed , and i'll make the necessary changes
Thank you

Hey @unibik Updating the tests is the most straightforward and maintainable solution. Your approach to adding severities to the affected by package API response is logical, and the issues you're encountering are common when extending functionality that impacts query counts and API responses.

1. Query Count Mismatch
The additional query for prefetching severities is expected, and updating the test cases to account for this is the right approach.

2. Assertion Errors in API Response
The tests are failing because the response now includes "severities": [], which wasn't accounted for in the original test assertions.

If @keshav-space or @pombredanne have concerns, they may suggest alternative approaches, but your reasoning for updating the tests is sound.

Thank you @Dedsec0098 for your insight and confirmation. Now i'll proceed with updating tests file accordingly .
If @keshav-space or @pombredanne have any alternative solutions , then i'm happy to adapt and work based on it .
Thank you