Closed NoelTautges closed 3 years ago
Merging #53 (aa226b8) into master (367a642) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
100.00%
.:exclamation: Current head aa226b8 differs from pull request most recent head db49147. Consider uploading reports for the commit db49147 to get more accurate results
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #53 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 3 3
Lines 196 248 +52
=========================================
+ Hits 196 248 +52
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
itemadapter/adapter.py | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
itemadapter/utils.py | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 367a642...db49147. Read the comment docs.
Hey, thank you very much for the effort here. Code looks good to me, I just wonder whether or not we should add it to the main package, from a maintainability perspective. I'm +0.5 on merging, let's see what other maintainers think.
@NoelTautges Seems like field metadata could be supported via the Field
function, could you maybe add support for it?
@elacuesta Sure thing! Should I add every set one except for default_factory
?
@NoelTautges I think it should be included (if defined). If you wonder about excluding it because callables are not serializables, I don’t think field metadata needs to be serializable. It’s not included when serializing an item, if I recall correctly.
@Gallaecio D'oh, you're totally right. I'll get on it. 👍
itemadapter/utils.py:44: error: "type" has no attribute "__fields__" [attr-defined]
@wRAR Thank you for your patience! A local tox run says I fixed the issue.
Would someone mind taking another look at this pull request? I fixed the typing issue.
Looks good to me, great work!
@Gallaecio Thank you for merging, and thank you for fixing that unreachable condition! Take care :)
@elacuesta Thank you :D
This pull request implements support for Pydantic models, including tests.
Coverage:
If this is better suited for custom registration in my own projects than a pull request, I totally understand! I just saw requested it once already (#42) and thought that since it was a theme, a pull request might be useful.