Make path of the item to validate available in plugin

[hramezani]

Change Summary

Related issue number

Checklist

• The pull request title is a good summary of the changes - it will be used in the changelog
• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Tests pass on CI
• Documentation reflects the changes where applicable
• My PR is ready to review, please add a comment including the phrase "please review" to assign reviewers

Selected Reviewer: @sydney-runkle

[cloudflare-pages]

Deploying with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	17b7125
Status:	✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL:	https://b0f00146.pydantic-docs2.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL:	https://plugin-path.pydantic-docs2.pages.dev

View logs

[hramezani]

Please review

[adriangb]

Should we be using __qualname__? Or otherwise, how are we handling e.g. a class nested in a function / differentiating them if there are multiple with the same name?

[adriangb]

Can you add a test for that scenario? Something like:

def foo():
    class Model(BaseModel): pass

def bar():
    class Model(BaseModel): pass

foo()
bar()

Alternatively, instead of making the class name and module available why can't we just make the class itself available? Then the plugin can decide what to do with weird cases like above. Or plugins may want to keep a some soft of dict[cls, ??] which would be easier with actual classes instead of names.

[hramezani]

def foo():
    class Model(BaseModel): pass

def bar():
    class Model(BaseModel): pass

foo()
bar()

I've added a test for this.

hmm, this is also an idea to make the class itself available on plugin. The current solution suggested by @samuelcolvin. So, what do you think here @samuelcolvin ?

[samuelcolvin]

otherwise LGTM.

please update.

[hramezani]

@samuelcolvin I've addressed your comments.

Also, I've pushed a new commit and added item_type param that contains the type of the item to be validated. e.g BaseModel, create_model, dataclass, ...

please review

[hramezani]

I've added source_type as well.

Here are the params:

• source_type: str -> The model, dataclass or type itself.
• type_path: str -> It's path e.g. foo.bar.MyModel
• item_type: str -> it's type e.g BaseModel, create_model, dataclass

TBH, I am not happy with param names. Any suggestions?

[samuelcolvin]

Sorry, some more changes to make it clearer. Hope this is makes sense to you.

[samuelcolvin]

Suggested change

	source_type: str,
	type_path: str,
	item_type: str,
	schema_type: Any,
	schema_type_path: tuple[str, str],
	schema_kind: Literal['BaseModel', 'create_mode', 'validate_call', 'TypeAdapter'],

Maybe I'm confused, but source_type should be Any I think?

Also:

• item_type is a very confusing name, better to use schema_kind and make it a literal
• I think it's more pythonic/correct ot make type_path, now schema_type_path an enum of module, name - you could even used a NamedTuple? Sorry for confusion.

[samuelcolvin]

rename and change type types here to. You can leave schema_type_module and schema_type_name as separate parameters if you like.

[samuelcolvin]

otherwise LGTM.

please update.

[samuelcolvin]

Are you sure it's valid to pass cls_module as a kwarg to __new__?

[samuelcolvin]

if module has to be passed this way for create_model, maybe better to use _cls_module to avoid clashes with config?

[hramezani]

Yes, it's there for create_model. I renamed all of them to _cls_module

[hramezani]

Ok, @samuelcolvin I've addressed your comments

Please review again

[samuelcolvin]

LGTM