-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
custom root types (apparently) not working well on 0.32.2 (pip version) #835
Comments
@RobinDavid The master branch is a different code from version 0.32.2 The project prepares to publish version 1.0. |
Ok nice, I missed this PR merged 😃 ! Will there be other intermediate versions before the 1.0 ? Feel free the close the issue if it is not relevant wrt open issues |
Nothing... Fortunately, pip supports to install package from the git repo.
or you can write the same syntax in requirements.txt 😄 |
OK nice good to know! Thanks! I have tried using the master of
I think I will patiently wait 😄 . By the way thank you for the help on that 😉 |
@RobinDavid yes there are probably serious incompatibilities between pydantic 1.0 and fastapi -- lots of breaking changes are going into 1.0 (that way we don't have to have more later!). For what it's worth I'm also a heavy user of fastapi, and as soon as pydantic 1.0 is out, getting fastapi to work with it will be one of my top priorities! |
Yes that makes sense. I am very much looking forward to it :) |
beta of v1 will be out this week. |
Dear all,
I am encountering an issue custom root data types.
I found to the issue #507 which has apparently been merged on July 6th. I am using the
pydantic
version from pip which is the 0.32.2 published on August 17th. Under this version the following snippet still produce'{"__root__": ["dog", "cat"]}'
instead of'["dog", "cat"]'
.Files modified by the issue seems to be present on the PyPI package thus I am wondering why it is still behaving like this ? It works perfectly fine on master, thus I am wondering if some changes that have been made in between might have "tampered" the custome root type behavior. Are you also encountering this issue ?
Best regards,
Robin
Infos:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: