Bug: Typo in field_meta.py ?

[Leobouloc]

Description

By analogy, I assume the line:

"max_length": getattr(value, "max_length", getattr(value, "max_length", None)),

should be:

"max_length": getattr(value, "max_length", getattr(value, "max_items", None)),

(if it is not a typo, the second getattr is redundant and could be removed)

polyfactory/polyfactory/field_meta.py

Lines 211 to 212 in b479e4a

	"max_length": getattr(value, "max_length", getattr(value, "max_length", None)),
	"min_length": getattr(value, "min_length", getattr(value, "min_items", None)),

URL to code causing the issue

polyfactory/polyfactory/field_meta.py

Line 211 in b479e4a

"max_length": getattr(value, "max_length", getattr(value, "max_length", None)),

MCVE

No response

Steps to reproduce

No response

Screenshots

No response

Logs

No response

Release Version

2.12.0

Platform

• Linux
• Mac
• Windows
• Other (Please specify in the description above)

---

Note

While we are open for sponsoring on GitHub Sponsors and
OpenCollective, we also utilize Polar.sh to engage in pledge-based sponsorship.

Check out all issues funded or available for funding on our Polar.sh Litestar dashboard

• If you would like to see an issue prioritized, make a pledge towards it!
• We receive the pledge once the issue is completed & verified
• This, along with engagement in the community, helps us know which features are a priority to our users.

[guacs]

@Leobouloc thanks! It's both a bug and not a bug at the same time 😄 This was included to handle parsing of constraints for pydantic v1, but the logic for v1 of pydantic doesn't use the FieldMeta.parse_constraints method due to it needing some specialized logic in how they're handled. Hence, no one's had any validation issues so far.

If you're willing, feel free to raise a PR to fix it :)

[Leobouloc]

Hi, Thanks for your answer. I would be glad to contribute, but am afraid I don't really understand the inner workings of the package ?

Concerning your answer, are you saying that max_length should be max_items or are you suggesting larger changes ?

[guacs]

I would be glad to contribute, but am afraid I don't really understand the inner workings of the package ?

That's completely fine! You can still give it a go and if you need any help, feel free to ask here or in discord.

Concerning your answer, are you saying that max_length should be max_items or are you suggesting larger changes ?

I think we can just remove that check for max_items and min_items from there. It's only for v1 and since we're not using parse_constraints for v1, there's no reason to keep them there.

EDIT: Also, there are larger changes with respect to how v1 is handled that are planned which is being tracked in #435. I haven't been able to really get it to work yet because of how the API of pydantic v1 works.