Pydantic does not work as expected when table = true. Maybe need "pydantic first"?

[Xtreemrus]

First Check

• I added a very descriptive title here.
• I used the GitHub search to find a similar question and didn't find it.
• I searched the SQLModel documentation, with the integrated search.
• I already searched in Google "How to X in SQLModel" and didn't find any information.
• I already read and followed all the tutorial in the docs and didn't find an answer.
• I already checked if it is not related to SQLModel but to Pydantic.
• I already checked if it is not related to SQLModel but to SQLAlchemy.

Commit to Help

• I commit to help with one of those options 👆

Example Code

from typing import Optional

from sqlmodel import SQLModel, Field

class SongBase(SQLModel):
    name: str
    artist: str
    year: Optional[int] = None

class SongCreate(SongBase):
    pass

class Song(SongBase, table=True):
    id: Optional[int] = Field(default=None, primary_key=True)


song = Song(id = 'not int value', name = 'some name', artist = 'some artist', year = 'other not int value')
print(song)

Description

Surprisingly, the code from the example will work without errors.

As far as I understand, the purpose of SQLModel is to take the best from SQLAlchemy and Pydantic, but as a user it was not obvious to me that adding table = true completely disables pydantic validation. Similar to "mobile first" in web design, maybe we can think about "pydantic first" style development, where by default we expect that if there are no errors, all data is correct?

Operating System

Windows

Operating System Details

Windows 11

SQLModel Version

0.0.8

Python Version

3.9.9

Additional Context

No response

[antont]

It will fail if you try to add it to the database. Seems somewhat nice also, that for DB classes, the DB validation is used.

This has been discussed in several issues too, though, and IIRC folks have modified sqlmodel to do pydantic validation there also.

[Duckling92]

Is it intended that validation is skipped when table=true? I would be grateful if you could point me to an explanation, as this seems as a peculiar choice to me (probably due to me lack of understanding), if it indeed is intended.