-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 243
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix parsing BigInt from str #1204
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -503,3 +503,11 @@ def test_allow_inf_nan_false_json() -> None: | |
v.validate_json('Infinity') | ||
with pytest.raises(ValidationError, match=r'Input should be a finite number \[type=finite_number'): | ||
v.validate_json('-Infinity') | ||
|
||
|
||
def test_json_big_int_key(): | ||
v = SchemaValidator({'type': 'dict', 'keys_schema': {'type': 'int'}, 'values_schema': {'type': 'str'}}) | ||
big_integer = 1433352099889938534014333520998899385340 | ||
assert v.validate_python({big_integer: 'x'}) == {big_integer: 'x'} | ||
assert v.validate_json('{"' + str(big_integer) + '": "x"}') == {big_integer: 'x'} | ||
assert v.validate_strings({str(big_integer): 'x'}) == {big_integer: 'x'} | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. definitely worth adding a test for There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Did you have something different in mind than the line above? assert v.validate_strings({str(big_integer): 'x'}) == {big_integer: 'x'} |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
who is one
ValidationMatch::strict
and oneValidationMatch::lax
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe add a test for both cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure, though I just kept the logic consistent with what was there before...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will control union behaviour, to add test cases would need to put these in unions with
str
as the equivalent validator on the RHS, and confirm that in both cases thestr
leg wins?e.g.
dict[int, str] | dict[str, str]
- I guess thedict[str, str]
is the better choice.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As discussed with @sydney-runkle offline, I think the divergence is a historical bug that's probably on me. Let's not block this PR on it.