Eric Jolibois
Eric Jolibois
@tiangolo are you happy with such a flag?
Thanks for the review! Feedback taken
Just a quick question: So you want to make "coerce" mode a bit stricter right? And for pydantic v2 what is your plan? - update the doc and say that...
I think I don't understand why it's needed. Doesn't ```py SchemaValidator( { 'type': 'typed-dict', 'fields': { 'future_datetime': { 'schema': {'type': 'datetime', 'gt': datetime.now()}, }, }, } ) ``` already tackle...
Right...sorry not enough sleep! 🤦 And what would be the desired API? A `FutureDatetimeSchema` with only `le` and `lt` as constraints? Or do we allow "magic" strings as boundaries (e.g....
I reckon adding a field `allow_string: bool` with default `true` ?
@JacobHayes I agree the current behaviour of `__eq__` is not always desired. Personally I overwrote it on one of my project where I rely on it with ```py def __eq__(self,...
I honestly think it would make sense for v2. The current behaviour with `dict` comparison is even simpler to overwrite and this "loose" way of checking equality could be done...
Hello @christophelec In the meantime you can see https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/issues/2272#issuecomment-771205557. For feature requests, better use the discussions section btw Edit: just saw you also opened the discussion! Can we close this...