A field with type as optional may correspond to a None object and should not be parsed.#641
Merged
Conversation
drewaogle
approved these changes
Jan 12, 2026
Contributor
drewaogle
left a comment
drewaogle
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this could be worth throwing an exception? But looks good.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
If a Datamodel field is optional, the pydantic validation should allow the object to be created.
We should support such objects when creating a query in the DataModels as they represent a valid usecase.
This change skips parsing of essential fields from such null objects.