fix: Validation of optional sequence in multipart data with one value

[provinzkraut]

Fix #3407.

A Sequence[UploadFile] | None would not pass validation when a single value was provided for a structured type, e.g. dataclass.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.29%. Comparing base (c625ce7) to head (85236f9).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3408   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.29%   98.29%           
=======================================
  Files         328      328           
  Lines       14864    14865    +1     
  Branches     2358     2358           
=======================================
+ Hits        14610    14611    +1     
  Misses        116      116           
  Partials      138      138           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[guacs]

I think the case where the annotation is directly on the handler itself also needs to be handled. I don't think there's a test for it.

def handler(data: list[UploadFile] | None): ...

[provinzkraut]

I think that one is already handled but I haven't actually checked it, I assumed we were testing that already. Can't check right now as I'm on the road but I'll do once I'm back home.

[peterschutt]

I think the case where the annotation is directly on the handler itself also needs to be handled. I don't think there's a test for it.

def handler(data: list[UploadFile] | None): ...

There does seem to be an issue with this too, but its failing when there are 2 or more files provided.

[peterschutt]

I think the case where the annotation is directly on the handler itself also needs to be handled. I don't think there's a test for it.

def handler(data: list[UploadFile] | None): ...

There does seem to be an issue with this too, but its failing when there are 2 or more files provided.

Created #3409 and #3410 for this

[guacs]

My comment can be ignored since another issue for that case was created. LGTM!

[provinzkraut]

My comment can be ignored since another issue for that case was created. LGTM!

Oops. I fixed it here before that PR was created 😬
@peterschutt Should I revert?

[peterschutt]

My comment can be ignored since another issue for that case was created. LGTM!

Oops. I fixed it here before that PR was created 😬 @peterschutt Should I revert?

No, I'm happy for it to go though here.

[euri10]

@provinzkraut I think we can safely ignore reportGeneralTypeIssues line 405 of multipart, merge this and close @peterschutt competing one, wdyt ?

[peterschutt]

@euri10 #3410 already closed, superseded by this. We should probably tag this as closing #3409 so it closes when it goes through.

[provinzkraut]

@provinzkraut I think we can safely ignore reportGeneralTypeIssues line 405 of multipart, merge this and close @peterschutt competing one, wdyt ?

Don't have time rn to do this but if you want, feel free to take this on.

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[github-actions]

Documentation preview will be available shortly at https://litestar-org.github.io/litestar-docs-preview/3408