Vb/support pydantic2 plt 145

[vbrodsky]

Story: https://labelbox.atlassian.net/browse/PLT-145

Please review for background and implementation approach: https://labelbox.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/~63d753c8724a5c79c7b69a36/pages/2369257507/SDK+Pydantic2+Pydantic1+Compatibility

This PR introduces several crucial updates aimed at enhancing our sdk compatibility with Pydantic2. The changes are as follows:

• Implementation of a Pydantic Compatibility Module: This is the centerpiece of the PR. The module is designed to facilitate our future usage of Pydantic v1 up to transition to Pydantic v2 or some other DTO implementation
• Updates to All Files Utilizing Pydantic: These changes are captured in the commit 2611b38. Given the comprehensive nature of our test automation tools, I believe manual review of each file for Pydantic-related updates is unnecessary. Our automated tests are robust enough to ensure that the updates meet our quality standards without requiring manual inspection of every change.
• Removal of Pydantic v2 Restriction: We have eliminated the restriction on Pydantic v2 from both requirements.txt and setup.py.

[sfendell-labelbox]

I think this is more legible and DRY if we don't have nested boolean statements here, e.g.

If sub_module_path:
    pydantic_v1_module_name = f"pydantic.{submodulepath}"
else if pydantic_version.startswith("1"):
   pydantic_v1_module_name = ...
else:
   ...

[mrobers1982]

I would assume we want pydantic.v1 in both cases. If so, why not?

[vbrodsky]

Well what if users are still using pydantic v1? Currently we need to support this case so we will do from pydantic instead of from pydantic.v1

[mrobers1982]

I thought that case is captured by the if condition?

I'm referring to the f"pydantic.{sub_module_path}" in the else condition which assumes the usage of Pydantic 2.x.

[vbrodsky]

Good point

[mrobers1982]

Good start!