Class Initialisation Validation Kwarg

[AndrewRiggs-Atkins]

As discussed in issue #134, this pr enables pydantic validation to be run on object instantiation when the class is set as a table, instead of only when being commited into the database.

main.py > SQLModelMetaclass > new > line ~307

config_validate = get_config("validate")
if config_validate is True:
    # If it was passed by kwargs, ensure it's also set in config
    new_cls.__config__.validate = config_validate
    for k, v in new_cls.__fields__.items():
        col = get_column_from_field(v)
        setattr(new_cls, k, col)

main.py > SQLModel > init > line ~517

if (
    (not getattr(__pydantic_self__.__config__, "table", False)
    or getattr(__pydantic_self__.__config__, "validate", False)) # Added validate
    and validation_error
):
    raise validation_error

usage

class Hero(SQLModel, table=True, validate=True): # Added validate

    id: int = Field(primary_key=True, nullable=False)
    number: int

    @validator('number')
    def less_than_100(cls, v):
        if v > 100:
            raise ValueError('must be less than 100')
        return v

When validate is disabled, validation runs on commit as usual, with it enabled, validation runs on object initialisation. Works for pydanic @validate functions as well as others such as max_length

[AndrewRiggs-Atkins]

@tiangolo Would it be possible to get the workflows run on this pr?

[AndrewRiggs-Atkins]

@tiangolo Would it be possible to get this PR reviewed and workflows run?

[ryanjdillon]

I just ran across this issue myself, so it would be great to get this fix merged.

Looks like it is just some lint errors in the actions failures.

Any plan to get this rolled in? Thanks!

[github-actions]

📝 Docs preview for commit 4499f96 at: https://63ecd2b82960b411061a9718--sqlmodel.netlify.app

[AndrewRiggs-Atkins]

I just ran across this issue myself, so it would be great to get this fix merged.

Looks like it is just some lint errors in the actions failures.

Any plan to get this rolled in? Thanks!

I've resolved the conflicts and the pr now passes the latest checks.

@tiangolo Are we able to get a go/no-go on this PR, been sitting around for over a year now so be good to get a final decision on whether it should be updated, merged, or closed.

[spott]

Bump?

I'm pretty interested in this, however it is now going on 3 years old... Any updates?

[YuriiMotov]

@AndrewRiggs-Atkins, thanks for your interest and efforts!

The feature you attempted to implement in this PR is highly requested by users. And I personally think it would be great if we found a solution to it.

But to add this to the project we should test it carefully and cover by automated tests to ensure it suits user's needs and further code changes will not brake it.

Are you ready to continue working on this?

[github-actions]

This pull request has a merge conflict that needs to be resolved.

[svlandeg]

Related PR: #1041