[changhc]

Change Summary

Support complex numbers.

Related issue number

Closes #8555

Checklist

• The pull request title is a good summary of the changes - it will be used in the changelog
• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Tests pass on CI
• Documentation reflects the changes where applicable
• My PR is ready to review, please add a comment including the phrase "please review" to assign reviewers

Also, upgrade to pydantic-core v2.22.0, which adds support for complex schemas. We've bundled in some other patches along with this release, such as removing xfails associated with tests that this release fixed!

[sydney-runkle]

Hi @changhc,

Great start here - looking good.

Maybe we could add a section to the docs as well with some usage patterns.

[sydney-runkle]

I left some notes on next steps in the pydantic-core PR :).

[codspeed]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #9654 will not alter performance

_{Comparing changhc:implement-complex (bb4441a) with main (f5d6acf)}

Summary

✅ 17 untouched benchmarks

[sydney-runkle]

@changhc, could you provide an example in pydantic where the error type is complex_str_parsing?

[sydney-runkle]

Looks good, pending revision of the complex_str_parsing error docs in another PR!

[sydney-runkle]

Probably could use some more docs here as well. I can handle that and will create an associated issue.

[changhc]

Hi @sydney-runkle, I've updated the error doc. The test case that failed with pypy is now skipped. A fix is merged into pypy master branch but not yet released. I'm trying to fix the failed mypy test.

[changhc]

I'm not sure what is actually changed in this file. Everything looks identical. It was "updated" after I ran make test-mypy-update-all.

[github-actions]

Coverage report

Click to see where and how coverage changed

File	Statements	Missing	Coverage	Coverage (new stmts)	Lines missing
pydantic
json_schema.py
pydantic/_internal
_generate_schema.py
_known_annotated_metadata.py
Project Total

This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action

[sydney-runkle]

@changhc,

Awesome find! Great work on this feature. We'll be sure to celebrate this in our upcoming release!!

I recall you mentioned you might be interested in working on some other issues. If this is still the case, I can point you towards some fun ones!

[changhc]

Thank you for the review! Yes I would love to look into other issues.

By the way, how much does the team care about test coverage? After reading the test coverage report, I'm now adding some tests to cover the missing lines, though I'm not sure if they actually help since the tests to be added are like simply checking if the json schema of a model matches the expected schema.

[sydney-runkle]

By the way, how much does the team care about test coverage? After reading the test coverage report, I'm now adding some tests to cover the missing lines, though I'm not sure if they actually help since the tests to be added are like simply checking if the json schema of a model matches the expected schema.

We care a decent amount about coverage - more tests sound great. Happy to merge after we add those. We generally try to keep coverage above 90%, but closer to 100% would be great.

Thank you for the review! Yes I would love to look into other issues.

Awesome, I'll ping you with some fun ones soon.

[sydney-runkle]

@changhc, as promised, some fun issues:

• Support for annotated_types.Not #10111
• Add full support for PEP 695 like syntax #9782
• Milestones for integration with Numpy #9677
• More support for deprecated fields/models #8922
• File path length validation (NewPath) #8308

[changhc]

The missing line in the previous report is now covered.

[sydney-runkle]

@changhc, another fun one: #9731