[maximberg]

Change Summary

Generating schema for generic fields hasn't been implemented. Now it should work.

Related issue number

Fixes #1578.

Checklist

• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Tests pass on CI and coverage remains at 100%
• Documentation reflects the changes where applicable
• changes/<pull request or issue id>-<github username>.md file added describing change
  (see changes/README.md for details)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2262 (bf9e4df) into master (13a5c7d) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master     #2262   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           21        21           
  Lines         4199      4205    +6     
  Branches       854       856    +2     
=========================================
+ Hits          4199      4205    +6     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pydantic/typing.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
pydantic/schema.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 13a5c7d...bf9e4df. Read the comment docs.

[PrettyWood]

Hi @maximberg and thanks for the contribution.
I don't know if you saw but #2260 was opened yesterday and tackles the same issue.
Probably good to merge both works!

[maximberg]

Hi @PrettyWood,
I didn't see your pull request yesterday. See what you can add to mine if it's not difficult for you. Tests passed, but coverage decreased.
Thanks )

[maximberg]

Coverage restored.

[PrettyWood]

I didn't see your pull request yesterday. See what you can add to mine if it's not difficult for you. Tests passed, but coverage decreased.

As a matter of fact it's not my PR but @danni's. I just think both works should be merged into one. If this PR is good to go and test cases from @danni's PR are green with your PR fine! But I won't checkout locally both works and do it myself sorry

[maximberg]

@Mazyod Thanks! I used your proposal.

[maximberg]

@PrettyWood Actually @danni's PR is not exactly about problem, described in #1578.

[Mazyod]

@samuelcolvin I wanted to sponsor this project because recent generics enhancements will make a big difference for our project 🙇‍♂️ Appreciate your help

[davidhyman]

👍 here too

I have tried out both #2262 (this) and #2260 MRs and they both work well with my codebase 😄

Currently @danni's MR is indicating lower code coverage. However, two of those tests flag failures on @maximberg's MR (test_nested_generic, test_complex_nested_generic), and I see (but don't fully comprehend) the diff between them.

By way of expediency, perhaps this MR could be merged as-is, providing an improvement? A later MR would then add the nested generic functionality.

In the meantime I will attempt to understand both MRs...

• I could then try and bump coverage for Fix generic BaseModel schema generation #2260 ... maybe @danni has time to take a look?
• Alternatively, I suppose I could try and merge both... 🧑‍🔬

[maximberg]

@davidhyman My code solves the problem of generic fields in generating schema.
@danni tries to solve the problem of nested generic models.
In my project I want to use generic fields and I made necessary changes here.

[maximberg]

I found some strange behavior when generic field is Optional. Will check it on Monday, 15th.

[samuelcolvin]

this looks great, thank you.

If you find other strange behaviour, please create an issue or if you're confident, a PR.