Add field_name to ValidatorInfo

[adriangb]

No description provided.

[samuelcolvin]

Otherwise I think this looks good.

Nice that we can reuse the extra.field element which is otherwise used for validating assignment. Can we think of any scenario where those two might conflict? I don't think so, but worth thinking about.

Definitely worth adding a unit test for this with validate assignment.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #439 field-in-validators (5eab2a7) will not alter performances.

Summary

🔥 0 improvements
❌ 0 regressions
✅ 93 untouched benchmarks

🆕 0 new benchmarks
⁉️ 0 dropped benchmarks

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #439 (ca9b467) into main (cc79b05) will decrease coverage by 0.13%.
The diff coverage is 90.51%.

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #439      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.49%   95.36%   -0.13%     
==========================================
  Files          93       93              
  Lines       11144    11119      -25     
  Branches       10       22      +12     
==========================================
- Hits        10642    10604      -38     
- Misses        497      510      +13     
  Partials        5        5              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pydantic_core/core_schema.py	97.02% <83.09%> (-1.71%)	⬇️
src/validators/function.rs	99.06% <97.95%> (-0.37%)	⬇️
src/validators/generator.rs	91.90% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
src/validators/mod.rs	98.74% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/validators/typed_dict.rs	98.29% <100.00%> (-0.66%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update cc79b05...ca9b467. Read the comment docs.

[adriangb]

please review

[samuelcolvin]

otherwise I think this is looking good.

[samuelcolvin]

Suggested change

	def model_field_function_before_schema(
	def method_before_schema(

1. fewer words
2. should work for dataclasses too

Same below.

[adriangb]

Is method/function really the right distinction (I realize I was the one that introduced it). Consider:

class Model:
  @validator
  def val_x(cls, val, info):  val

This is technically a bound class method or a method bound to the class. But we'd be putting it down the function code path. Which is a bit confusing. In general I think the nomenclature of function vs. method in Python is confusing. So I think perhaps it's best to differentiate between a validator attached to a model field vs. not. And by model here I mean model in the broadest sense to include dataclasses, TypedDict, etc. So maybe something like field_before_validation_callback and before_validation_callback would be good names?

[samuelcolvin]

then I would have field_before_validation_callback and general_before_validation_callback.

[adriangb]

That is fine by me, let's confirm on call before I rename for the 5th time 🤣

[adriangb]

Big rename in 3b91441