Add backward compatibility with Pydantic V1 #92
Conversation
Merinorus
force-pushed
the
issue-90-compatibility-with-pydantic-v1-basemodel
branch
from
738cfe9 to
5b5089d
Compare
Merinorus
changed the title
Merinorus
force-pushed
the
issue-90-compatibility-with-pydantic-v1-basemodel
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f1e0d31 to
2b99f09
Compare
Merinorus
changed the title
Merinorus
force-pushed
the
issue-90-compatibility-with-pydantic-v1-basemodel
branch
2 times, most recently
from
35f7c96 to
0dc676f
Compare
|
Merinorus
changed the title
|
@Merinorus hey, thanks for the PR, it seems like this PR some tests on the CI. I will have a closer looked at which tests are failing and why they are failing, but I think this PR could really benefit if we support both V1 and V2! |
Merinorus
force-pushed
the
issue-90-compatibility-with-pydantic-v1-basemodel
branch
4 times, most recently
from
be25454 to
da0a048
Compare
|
Hi @yctomwang, thank you! I made a little mistake on instance checking: isinstance(obj, Union[BaseModel, V1BaseModel]) # Wrong
->
isinstance(obj, (BaseModel, V1BaseModel)) # OkThis should be good for review now. |
|
@Merinorus Hey, I dont think the MacOS failures are because of your PR, give me sometime to investigate into why the CI is failing and i will get back to you. Thank you once again for the PR and your patience! |
|
@yctomwang Hi! I found out why the CI is failing: the macOS workers are now running ARM architecture, and python 3.7 is not supported anymore. So if you want to continue supporting this version, this might need to be tested against an old macOS version running on x86 architecture. The |
|
@Merinorus with the CI fixed and we can merge code, i think we can proceed with this PR. for somereason this PR right now still fails actions even tho its been rerun. |
|
Hi @yctomwang, no worries. It's because this PR should be rebased on the latest commit from the main branch, otherwise it runs on the old CI. I'll rebase the branch. |
Merinorus
force-pushed
the
issue-90-compatibility-with-pydantic-v1-basemodel
branch
from
da0a048 to
4bff748
Compare
Merinorus
force-pushed
the
issue-90-compatibility-with-pydantic-v1-basemodel
branch
from
4bff748 to
5c7dad9
Compare
|
All good :) |
|
Hi there - what's the timeline to merge and release this PR? This is blocking our migration as well |
|
I would be happy to proceed but I'm not a maintainer. In the meantime, you can fix your application requirements with the PR's commit. Example of a python requirement.txt: flask-Pydantic @ git+https://github.com/merinorus/flask-pydantic.git@da0a0489474d2b01c61a1f51d5b7536647e2ad29
...
pydantic==2.9.2Fork it to your personal or organization repo, so you won't depend on mine. |
|
+1 any update on getting this merged into core? We have forked it in the mean time, but this is extremely helpful as an upgrade path from v1 to v2 and it would be nice to get it in |
|
Hi @yctomwang, any news? I didn't find a way to contact you personally. |
Add back the support of Pydantic V1 (Implements #90). This eases the migration from Pydantic V1 to Pydantic V2.
Without this support, users cannot gradually migrate a Flask project from Pydantic V1 to Pydantic V2.
I tried to keep the code change to a minimum. However, test files are in a separate folder, to ease the migration when Pydantic V1 support would be completely dropped.
No noticeable performance impact for Pydantic V2 users.