Relax protected namespace config default #10441
Conversation
Deploying pydantic-docs with
|
| Latest commit: |
36a7816
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://5749a93c.pydantic-docs.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://protected-ns.pydantic-docs.pages.dev |
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #10441 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
231eb93 to
e9d3e43
Compare
changing tests, adding updates remove added space Update docs/concepts/serialization.md Co-authored-by: hyperlint-ai[bot] <154288675+hyperlint-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Update docs/concepts/serialization.md Co-authored-by: Victorien <65306057+Viicos@users.noreply.github.com> removing warning related code
removing unneeded warning check
1859a35 to
0a9bfa9
Compare
Coverage report
This PR does not seem to contain any modification to coverable code. |
|
I think this should be ready for review. Given #10493, I actually don't think it's necessary that we add from pydantic import BaseModel
from typing import Any
class User(BaseModel):
model_fields: list[str]
model_computed_fields: list[str]
model_extra: dict[str, Any]
model_fields_set: set[str]
user = User(model_fields=['id', 'name'], model_computed_fields=[], model_extra={}, model_fields_set={'id', 'name'})
"""
/Users/programming/pydantic_work/pydantic/pydantic/_internal/_fields.py:190: UserWarning: Field name "model_fields" in "User" shadows an attribute in parent "BaseModel"
warnings.warn(
/Users/programming/pydantic_work/pydantic/pydantic/_internal/_fields.py:190: UserWarning: Field name "model_computed_fields" in "User" shadows an attribute in parent "BaseModel"
warnings.warn(
/Users/programming/pydantic_work/pydantic/pydantic/_internal/_fields.py:190: UserWarning: Field name "model_extra" in "User" shadows an attribute in parent "BaseModel"
warnings.warn(
/Users/programming/pydantic_work/pydantic/pydantic/_internal/_fields.py:190: UserWarning: Field name "model_fields_set" in "User" shadows an attribute in parent "BaseModel"
warnings.warn(
"""I've also enabled support for compiled patterns, though I don't think that's necessary, as all other overrides are methods - which are standard practice to override, and you'll get type checking warnings if signature isn't compatible or b) warnings if something conflicts with the protected namespaces. |
| @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ def push(self, config_wrapper: ConfigWrapper | ConfigDict | None): | |||
| ser_json_inf_nan='null', | |||
| validate_default=False, | |||
| validate_return=False, | |||
| protected_namespaces=('model_',), | |||
| protected_namespaces=('model_validate', 'model_dump'), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we also want to add model_construct here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good question, cc @samuelcolvin @dmontagu
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Following up here - we decided we didn't need to add model_construct - that's not a namespace we anticipate expanding in the same way we do for model_dump_ etc, you can imagine python, json, some_other_format.
Closes #10315
Decided not to warn on method overrides, as that's an incredibly common practice in Python, and type checking does enough warning here in cases of incompatibility.