First class field validator about pydantic-core HOT 5 CLOSED

I would also lean towards one single syntax: I imagine these schemas are (mostly) going to be programmatically generated, so having shorthand is only really helpful for writing tests for this package.

from pydantic-core.

From #92 (review)

We want an intermediate dict above schema on a field. This does not affect the rust validators or validation, just the python interface for building schema.

Example:

{
    'type': 'model',
    'fields': {
        'field_a': {
            'required': True,
            'schema': {'type': 'str'},
        },
        'field_b': {
            'default': 123,
            'alias': ...
            'schema': {'type': 'int'},
        },
    }
}

We might add other stuff beyond required, schema, alias.

from pydantic-core.

@samuelcolvin I see 'fields': {'age': 'int'} as a shortcut for 'fields': {'age': {'type': 'int'}}, do you want to keep this?
If yes do you expect 'fields': {'age': {'type': 'int'}} to be a shortcut for 'fields': {'age': {'schema': {'type': 'int'}}} if no default, alias, ... is set?
Personally I like to have only one syntax even if nothing else is set (i.e. no shortcut) but it's your call ;)

from pydantic-core.

Completely up to you, whatever you think is best.

Having a single schema will make it simpler and in particular, make the python type hints easier.

We already allow 'int' is equivalent to {'type': 'int'}, so you may as well leave that bit as-is.

from pydantic-core.

Yep my thoughts exactly! I just opened #97

from pydantic-core.