feat: Add descriptions, examples, and validations to pydantic fields #1335
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
romeonicholas
force-pushed
the
pydantic-update
branch
from
88eeec5
to
21442e3
Compare
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1335 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 73.22% 73.22%
=======================================
Files 166 166
Lines 5431 5431
Branches 608 608
=======================================
Hits 3977 3977
Misses 1323 1323
Partials 131 131 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Note to future self: be more careful not to ignore default assignments and break the tests 😆 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Resolves #1327
Adding descriptions, examples, and some validations to pydantic models. Figuring out the right balance has been a little complicated.
For 'description': A lot of these are self-evident, and I considered adding tags to indicate something the user enters (e.g. a model name is chosen by a user, but a model slug is derived and not directly modifiable) but that felt like it was getting too deep into implemenation and things that could change.
For 'examples': I've avoided including examples where they might be meaningless (any integer field), and used partial objects in place of full ones when it's reuse of a model created elsewhere (e.g. a partial user example on the event model, because the full user model is covered elsewhere).
For validations: So far I think I've only added them for user-inputted strings, with relatively arbitrary values that we should probably check against in production. We could potentially just add the limits to post and patch models, leaving existing overly-long offenders in place if we want to avoid a migration?
Still lots of fields left to work on.