make field_name and data available on ValidationInfo

[samuelcolvin]

See pydantic/pydantic#7542 for more details.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #980 (0544b12) into main (0a3f2b2) will decrease coverage by 0.10%.
The diff coverage is 78.94%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #980      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.08%   92.99%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         106      106              
  Lines       15832    15844      +12     
  Branches       26       35       +9     
==========================================
- Hits        14738    14734       -4     
- Misses       1087     1103      +16     
  Partials        7        7              

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
python/pydantic_core/core_schema.py	94.74% <72.41%> (-1.81%)	⬇️
src/validators/function.rs	93.25% <100.00%> (-0.27%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0a3f2b2...0544b12. Read the comment docs.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #980 will not alter performance

_{Comparing ValidationInfo (0544b12) with main (0a3f2b2)}

Summary

✅ 138 untouched benchmarks

[adriangb]

I think we should just remove these and make it a breaking change. Bump the major version if you think we need to (I don't think we do, I'd like to keep considering pydanic-core as a quasi implementation detail)

[samuelcolvin]

I think we should keep these since there will be some reasonable external use of them, and a deprecating warning is a lot better than an ImportError.

[samuelcolvin]

but I'll put the attributes behind __getattr__ so there's a warning.

[adriangb]

since there will be some reasonable external use of them

is there any data to back this up? we've made plenty of breaking changes in pydantic-core and to my knowledge no one has complained, so either no one is impacted or those that are impacted understand the state of the library and what guarantees we are making and not.

What I want to avoid here is complexity and technical debt. Using a __getattr__ is the opposite of the direction I am suggesting we go.

[samuelcolvin]

yes there is, the original issues that reported this used FieldValidationInfo, also:

• here
• here

and more, see this github search

[adriangb]

Hmm okay, you've convinced me there's some usage. I guess we can leave this complexity in here, such a bummer.

[samuelcolvin]

I also think this is a more fundamental change to core-schema than we've made before, hence worrying about compatibility, I think most other changes have either been additions, or are behind the public functions.

[antonagestam]

I also used functions from the core_schema.* namespace when adapting Pydantic V2 support for immoney, and now quite surprised to see this usage is already deprecated (I haven't even had time to fully adopt V2 across all libs yet, and API is already changing). What would have been the preferred option to use here, is there any way I could have avoided using these?

[samuelcolvin]

We'll, we had to make this change to make pydantic V2 more compatible with v1 while still fully typed.

AFAIK this is the only post V2 change where we introduced incompatible changes.

It's unfortunate, but I don't see how we could have avoided it, or you could have predicted it.

[antonagestam]

Gotcha, thanks for providing insight. Unfortunate and some extra churn for me, but I assume it's for the better in the long run 👍