Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
replace ultra_strict with new union implementation #867
replace ultra_strict with new union implementation #867
Changes from 8 commits
5df6ec1
ac546ef
0769d0c
bab4c6d
ba203f1
bd1d3bd
186a40b
436a0db
bddf977
21fce4f
ac9ac78
fd7aab5
4c6bfab
159a7ce
18f5fce
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
will this want to change in future, if so can we leave a consistent
TODO: V3
comment to make it easy to find in future.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This depends what you think of e.g. pydantic/pydantic#7097. The current semantic that this PR preserves is that
UUID
is "as good" asstr
for a UUID-format JSON string, so it's dependent on ordering. Changing this to be "exact" means that in JSON mode astr
in a union wins overUUID
,datetime
, etc, irrespective of position.That is a positive change for simplicity and matches Python semantics better, so there is a case to consider breaking this, but it's not clear cut IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's hard to argue that in
datetime | str
orUUID | str
ordatetime | int
that the type which actually matches JSON type shouldn't take priority. If you agree I would be happy to change it now.Otherwise add the
TODO: V3
comment so we remember to change it in future.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree but feeling a bit cautious so will mark as TODO and we can decide later if it's a 2.6 or V3 thing.