Merged
Conversation
I thought the previous solution of comparing the string version of the type was not flexible enough. Instead, I treat every input that we got multiple values for as a list. If we got a single value input and it should've been considered a list with one element, handle that case during generic parsing.
Currently, the startswith() check for list doesn't work because str(list) == "<class 'list'>". This logic also is currently not set up for dicts. I think that just returning the stringified version of the entire type is still clear to the user.
Add tests for typeddicts Remove typeddict stuff
smt5541
approved these changes
Nov 19, 2025
Collaborator
smt5541
left a comment
smt5541
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for cleaning up the generic parsing and making it use proper typing! This looks great!
Owner
|
Many thanks both! 🏆 |
willowrimlinger
deleted the
willowrimlinger/switch-off-string-based-generic-parsing
branch
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
🛠 Changes being made
Give examples of the changes you've made in this pull request. Include an itemized list if you can.
dict[str, int])int | str)🧠 Rationale behind the change
Why did you choose to make these changes?
Before, you were forced to use the
dictannotation with no type arguments and your only method of validation was through json schema. This doesn't play nice with strict type checking. Now, you can properly type your dict parameters for use in the view function.Does this pull request resolve any open issues?
No
Were there any trade-offs you had to consider?
I removed the logic to simplify the type name for primatives in the ValidationError message. It could be adapted to support dictionaries and fixed to properly support lists, but I thought string-comparisons like this seemed hacky and prone to error, especially when adding support for new types.
🧪 Testing
Have tests been added or updated for the changes introduced in this pull request?
Are the changes backwards compatible?
If the changes aren't backwards compatible, what other options were explored?
✨ Quality check
Are your changes free of any erroneous print statements, debuggers or other leftover code?
Has the README been updated to reflect the changes introduced (if applicable)?
💬 Additional comments