Skip to content

Support Pydantic model defaults + field descriptions #802

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 43 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Support Pydantic model defaults + field descriptions #802

wants to merge 43 commits into from

Conversation

jinnovation
Copy link
Contributor

@jinnovation jinnovation commented May 1, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Contributes to #793.

This PR implements quick-and-dirty support for Pydantic-style default values and field descriptions. In other words, the following two classes will render equivalently:

class Foo(pydantic.BaseModel):
    """Foo class documentation."""

    a: int = pydantic.Field(default=1, description="Docstring for a")

class Foo(pydantic.BaseModel):
    """Foo class documentation."""

    a: int = 1
    """Docstring for a"""

Open questions:

  • Should Pydantic support for pdoc be split out into a separate "plugin" package, e.g. pdoc-pydantic or pdoc[pydantic]?
  • Is this the best place for default-value-extraction logic for Pydantic classes to live?

mhils
mhils reviewed May 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@mhils mhils left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

Should Pydantic support for pdoc be split out into a separate "plugin" package, e.g. pdoc-pydantic or pdoc[pydantic]?

Too much complexity for now. I think pydantic is popular enough to have support for it builtin for now.

Is this the best place for default-value-extraction logic for Pydantic classes to live?

Pragmatically yes. See my comments below on how we can keep things reasonably clean.

@jinnovation jinnovation marked this pull request as draft May 2, 2025 17:23
@jinnovation

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@jinnovation
Copy link
Contributor Author

Two issues related to rendering Pydantic model docs that I propose treating as out-of-scope for this PR:

  • If user's BaseModel subclass does not have its own class-level docstring, we end up rendering the docs for BaseModel itself;
  • We render the docs for model_config, which is typically only useful to implementers of the class and not to users thereof, i.e. the expected audience for the generated docs
image

jinnovation
jinnovation commented Oct 11, 2025
View reviewed changes
@jinnovation jinnovation marked this pull request as ready for review October 11, 2025 09:42
jinnovation
jinnovation commented Oct 11, 2025
View reviewed changes
@jinnovation jinnovation requested a review from mhils October 11, 2025 19:36
mhils
mhils reviewed Oct 11, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@mhils mhils left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! This looks great overall. Mostly some minor stylistic nits.

@jinnovation jinnovation marked this pull request as draft October 12, 2025 03:08
jinnovation
jinnovation commented Oct 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
@jinnovation jinnovation changed the title Support defaults from Pydantic fields Support Pydantic model defaults + field descriptions Oct 17, 2025
@jinnovation jinnovation marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2025 03:08
@jinnovation jinnovation requested a review from mhils October 17, 2025 03:08
@jinnovation
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mhils: This is ready for your eyes again!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@mhils mhils Awaiting requested review from mhils

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@jinnovation @mhils