Add list fail-fast config option

[uriyyo]

Change Summary

Add list fail-fast config option.

Related issue number

fix: #1321

Checklist

• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Documentation reflects the changes where applicable
• Pydantic tests pass with this pydantic-core (except for expected changes)
• My PR is ready to review, please add a comment including the phrase "please review" to assign reviewers

Selected Reviewer: @dmontagu

[uriyyo]

please review

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #1322 will not alter performance

_{Comparing uriyyo:list-fail-fast (27db075) with main (9507a28)}

Summary

✅ 155 untouched benchmarks

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.85714% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/validators/tuple.rs	86.36%	3 Missing ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[davidhewitt]

Thanks very much for the PR! I had a quick chat with the team and we're happy to have this feature added.

However, before merging, we would like to see this option extended to related types that are closely related to lists. We're thinking e.g. tuples, sets, and maybe more general sequences / iterables. It feels inevitable that with this flag present, we'll get requests to support more types, so acting to meet some of those requests early would be highly desirable.

[uriyyo]

Great, I will update this PR to add this feature to more iterable types!

[adriangb]

Could we implement this as an exception, similar to PydanticOmit? That way a python-defined validator can control the flow.

[uriyyo]

@adriangb Makes sense to me, I will try to reimplement it in similar way as PydanticOmit is working

[adriangb]

It may be that both are necessary, there's mutliple use cases:

1. Inside of a python validator you want to abort the rest of the list, similar workflow to PydanticOmit
2. You just want to abort early with no python handler (like this PR implements)

[uriyyo]

Hi @adriangb @davidhewitt

This PR is ready with basic implementation of fail-fast feature for list, set, frozenset, and tuple types.

Could we implement this as an exception, similar to PydanticOmit? That way a python-defined validator can control the flow.

@adriangb I suggest implement this feature in separate PR just to make review/merge process easier. What do you think about it?

[adriangb]

Makes sense to me

[davidhewitt]

Thanks, this part looks good to me!

We'll also need accompanying changes to pydantic.Field on the Python side. You should find it's possible to create a PR and tests for the main pydantic repo already, using a locally-built pydantic_core.

What we often do is review and merge those into pydantic at the same time, marking the tests as xfail until the pydantic_core changes propagate.

[davidhewitt]

I see the Python PR is now prepared too, many thanks 🚀