Enum validator improvements #9045
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Deploying pydantic-docs with
|
| Latest commit: |
8bd46c3
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://11ebbd3f.pydantic-docs2.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://enum-validator-improvements.pydantic-docs2.pages.dev |
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #9045 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
samuelcolvin
commented
Mar 19, 2024
| except ValueError: | ||
| # The type: ignore on the next line is to ignore the requirement of LiteralString | ||
| raise PydanticCustomError('enum', f'Input should be {expected}', {'expected': expected}) # type: ignore | ||
| raise PydanticCustomError('enum', 'Input should be {expected}', {'expected': expected}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
output is the same, but it's more correct to let pydantic-core take care of replacing the variables in the message template.
| python_schema=strict_python_schema, | ||
| ) | ||
| js_updates['type'] = 'integer' | ||
| lax_schema = core_schema.no_info_after_validator_function(to_enum, core_schema.int_schema()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've replaced lots of use of core_schema.chain_schema with core_schema.no_info_after_validator_function which should be more efficient, and is more concise.
| [enum_schema, core_schema.no_info_plain_validator_function(lambda x: x.value)] | ||
| ) | ||
| if config.get('use_enum_values', False): | ||
| enum_schema = core_schema.no_info_after_validator_function(attrgetter('value'), enum_schema) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
attrgetter is nearly twice as fast as a lambda:
In [1]: import enum
In [2]: class Foo(enum.Enum):
...: x = 'a'
...: y = 'b'
...:
In [3]: with_lambda = lambda thing: thing.x
In [4]: %timeit with_lambda(Foo)
39.1 ns ± 0.161 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10,000,000 loops each)
In [5]: from operator import attrgetter
In [6]: using_attrgetter = attrgetter('x')
In [7]: %timeit using_attrgetter(Foo)
24.5 ns ± 0.473 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10,000,000 loops each)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we be using attrgetter more broadly?
sydney-runkle
approved these changes
Mar 19, 2024
| [enum_schema, core_schema.no_info_plain_validator_function(lambda x: x.value)] | ||
| ) | ||
| if config.get('use_enum_values', False): | ||
| enum_schema = core_schema.no_info_after_validator_function(attrgetter('value'), enum_schema) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we be using attrgetter more broadly?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Change Summary
While looking through how we do enum validation in preparation for moving some of it to Rust, I saw a few things that could be improved. Hopefully this provides a "cleaner" schema, and should improve performance a bit.
Performance gain is small, but not insignificant:
before
After
Checklist