Ensure `ValidationInfo.field_name` is correct on validator reuse #1692

DouweM · 2025-04-15T18:00:40Z

Change Summary

See pydantic/pydantic#11737 (comment)

Companion PR in pydantic: pydantic/pydantic#11761

Related issue number

Part of pydantic/pydantic#11737

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: @sydney-runkle

…e called with correct ValidationInfo.field_name

DouweM · 2025-04-15T18:00:57Z

@davidhewitt Please review!

cc @Viicos

Edit: Never mind, failing tests, looking

codspeed-hq · 2025-04-15T18:07:26Z

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #1692 will not alter performance

_{Comparing DouweM:validator-reuse-field-name (3d69981) with main (9a25aa6)}

Summary

✅ 157 untouched benchmarks

DouweM · 2025-04-15T18:28:59Z

I ended up changing some tests in 0fd7ef1 and df34451.

Both are similar to the issue described in pydantic/pydantic#11737 (comment): we now get ValidationInfo.field_name even if the validator wasn't explicitly created for a specific field, which is not always expected.

I think the changes in the second commit make sense as the validator acts on the field value, but not necessarily in first commit where the validator acts on the entire model.

I'm not sure the State based approach gives us the ability to drop the field_name in that specific case though. I think I'm OK with this change in behavior, interpreting field_name as "this is the field currently being validated" more than "this is the field the validator acts on".

@Viicos What do you thnk?

DouweM · 2025-04-15T18:41:16Z

We're hitting some leak/GC issues! https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic-core/actions/runs/14476861875/job/40604489000?pr=1692

davidhewitt

Thanks, looking good!

tests/validators/test_function.py

src/validators/mod.rs

src/validators/function.rs

davidhewitt · 2025-04-15T18:48:33Z

We're hitting some leak/GC issues! https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic-core/actions/runs/14476861875/job/40604489000?pr=1692

These might be reproducable on main; it's possible it's something new with 3.13.3.

davidhewitt

LGTM, with just the question of maybe we start cleaning up the existing state to keep things efficient.

The 3.13t tests will not block merge, so depending on whether we leave the above for a follow-up this is good to go 👍

Viicos · 2025-04-15T19:49:45Z

LGTM, with just the question of maybe we start cleaning up the existing state to keep things efficient.

You mean having the state rebound only if we are certain a validator (with info) is going to be used?

davidhewitt · 2025-04-15T20:08:16Z

LGTM, with just the question of maybe we start cleaning up the existing state to keep things efficient.

You mean having the state rebound only if we are certain a validator (with info) is going to be used?

Nope I just meant the deprecation which you agreed with. 👍

…plain,wrap}_validator_function

DouweM · 2025-04-15T22:32:49Z

python/pydantic_core/core_schema.py

@@ -1954,7 +1954,7 @@ class NoInfoValidatorFunctionSchema(TypedDict):
 class WithInfoValidatorFunctionSchema(TypedDict, total=False):
    type: Required[Literal['with-info']]
    function: Required[WithInfoValidatorFunction]
-    field_name: str
+    field_name: str  # deprecated


I think this TypedDict is only used for type hinting -- let me know if this is sufficient or if we should force a deprecation warning here as well somehow.

DouweM · 2025-04-15T22:36:44Z

tests/validators/test_function.py

-    # insert_assert(reprs)
-    assert reprs == [
-        'ValidationInfo(config=None, context=None, data=None, field_name=None)',
-        "ValidationInfo(config=None, context=None, data=None, field_name='x')",


This test explicitly tested the now-deprecated behavior of setting a field_name on the validator function schema. If we assume no one was directly constructing these instead of us, removing this should be fine.

I could also leave the test and wrap the call in pytest.warns, to verify the old behavior keeps working (which it does) -- let me know what you prefer.

DouweM · 2025-04-15T22:40:42Z

@Viicos Pydantic is still passing field_name, so it makes sense that test-pydantic-integration is failing now that I've deprecated it.

What's the best way to update pydantic for the new pydantic-core, before this is even merged?

python/pydantic_core/core_schema.py

Viicos · 2025-04-16T07:06:09Z

I'm not sure the State based approach gives us the ability to drop the field_name in that specific case though. I think I'm OK with this change in behavior, interpreting field_name as "this is the field currently being validated" more than "this is the field the validator acts on".

@Viicos What do you thnk?

I think this is fine, it is actually not a change in behavior as it is already behaving as such (as per my comment). Would be great if this wasn't this way but anyway I don't think many users are relying on this field_name attribute.

What's the best way to update pydantic for the new pydantic-core, before this is even merged?

We usually skip it as it will work again once the pydantic-core version is bumped on pydantic.

DouweM · 2025-04-16T14:24:17Z

We usually skip it as it will work again once the pydantic-core version is bumped on pydantic.

@Viicos OK, I'll get a PR up to stop passing the field_name argument in pydantic, so that we can bump pydantic-core in that same PR once this PR is merged, and ensure everything keeps working right.

DouweM · 2025-04-16T18:09:22Z

Companion PR in Pydantic: pydantic/pydantic#11761

cc @Viicos

davidhewitt

I think this is good, thanks 👍

DouweM · 2025-04-17T13:59:55Z

@Viicos Let me know when you've bumped the version here and I'll update the Pydantic PR to point at the new version!

Pass field_name to validators through ValidationState so functions ar…

c0f01df

…e called with correct ValidationInfo.field_name

pydantic-hooky bot added the ready for review label Apr 15, 2025

Update test as validate_assignment ValidationInfo now gets a field_name

0fd7ef1

Update tests as ValidationInfo now always gets a field_name

df34451

davidhewitt reviewed Apr 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

tests/validators/test_function.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/validators/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/validators/function.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Only clone the field_name when necessary

e609bb3

davidhewitt approved these changes Apr 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

DouweM added 2 commits April 15, 2025 22:25

Set ValidationState.field_name for ROOT_FIELD

73c2362

Deprecate field_name argument on core_schema.with_info_{before,after,…

9bac3bd

…plain,wrap}_validator_function

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

Viicos reviewed Apr 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

Viicos changed the title ~~Ensure ValidationInfo.field_name is correct on validator reuse~~ Ensure ValidationInfo.field_name is correct on validator reuse Apr 16, 2025

Set stacklevel on validator function field_name arg DeprecationWarning

b5cc2e9

DouweM added 2 commits April 16, 2025 17:48

Set field_name when validating call arguments

718324d

Add deprecated comment to WithInfoWrapValidatorFunctionSchema.field_name

3d69981

DouweM mentioned this pull request Apr 16, 2025

Do not provide field_name in validator core schemas pydantic/pydantic#11761

Merged

5 tasks

davidhewitt approved these changes Apr 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

davidhewitt merged commit 4760f38 into pydantic:main Apr 17, 2025
26 of 29 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Ensure `ValidationInfo.field_name` is correct on validator reuse #1692

Ensure `ValidationInfo.field_name` is correct on validator reuse #1692

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025

davidhewitt left a comment

davidhewitt commented Apr 15, 2025

davidhewitt left a comment

Viicos commented Apr 15, 2025

davidhewitt commented Apr 15, 2025

DouweM Apr 15, 2025

DouweM Apr 15, 2025

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025

Viicos commented Apr 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DouweM commented Apr 16, 2025

DouweM commented Apr 16, 2025

davidhewitt left a comment

DouweM commented Apr 17, 2025

Ensure ValidationInfo.field_name is correct on validator reuse #1692

Ensure ValidationInfo.field_name is correct on validator reuse #1692

Conversation

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025 • edited Loading

Change Summary

Related issue number

Checklist

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025 • edited Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Apr 15, 2025 • edited Loading

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #1692 will not alter performance

Summary

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025 • edited Loading

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025

davidhewitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidhewitt commented Apr 15, 2025

davidhewitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Viicos commented Apr 15, 2025

davidhewitt commented Apr 15, 2025

DouweM Apr 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DouweM Apr 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025

Viicos commented Apr 16, 2025 • edited Loading

DouweM commented Apr 16, 2025

DouweM commented Apr 16, 2025

davidhewitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DouweM commented Apr 17, 2025

Ensure `ValidationInfo.field_name` is correct on validator reuse #1692

Ensure `ValidationInfo.field_name` is correct on validator reuse #1692

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DouweM commented Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Viicos commented Apr 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading