Frank Sachsenheim
Frank Sachsenheim
thank you very much. this is a good impulse to figure out design details. i want to point that i only have brief practical expierence with the `dataclasses` module. some...
you could preprocess your schemas with cerberus, couldn't you?
would it be diabolic to use the builtin callable `type` to reference the specified type? but what doesn't make me fond of the idea is that not all types are...
with the enhanced possible constraints that i propose in #374 the generating would be possible. schema = {'ham': {'type': int}} for field, rules in schema.items(): if 'type' in rules: schema[field]['coerce']...
would an instance's configuration flag `force_type` also be feasible? that'd then apply to any field that has a distinct type defined. to sum up, the other proposal is to define...
there's one thing not to forget: the order in which the various normalization rules are applied matters. with the growing amount of possible alterations there's no way around the capability...
so far, there have been different proposals how to address the coercion of field's values based on the constraint which a `type` rule defines: #### 1. Transform a schema w/...
do you mean like the `allowed` rule, but for one value only?
are you okay with using the `allowed` rule and assigning it a constraint with one value?
i don't think we should add possible alternate names of rules to the docs.