[bug#42792] [PATCH] gnu: Add python-pydantic.

[Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org>]

Hey Tanguy,

>>         (uri (git-reference
>>               (url "https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic")
>> -              (commit (string-append "v" version))))
>> +             (commit (string-append "v" version))))
>>         (file-name (git-file-name name version))
>> -       (sha256 (base32 "1380s9k77g6q15by9fkxndczjk89q6xpz09jdrqip535xws2z3j8"))))
>> +       (sha256
>> +        (base32 "1380s9k77g6q15by9fkxndczjk89q6xpz09jdrqip535xws2z3j8"))))
>
> Thanks for paying attention to every details!!
> Actually, those things have been bothering me for quiet a while…
> They are not reported by `./pre-inst-env guix lint python-pydantic` or
> fixed by `emacs --script etc/indent-code.el gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm python-pydantic`. :-(

The first diff is fixed when running "./etc/indent-code.el
gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm python-pydantic" for me.

>
> Would the following have been acceptable?
>
> ```
>> +       (sha256 (base32
>> +                "1380s9k77g6q15by9fkxndczjk89q6xpz09jdrqip535xws2z3j8"))))
> ```

It is acceptable but the convention is to put "base32" on the next line.

>
> And what about this? (2-space indent instead of 1, like `add-before` below)
>
> ```
>> +       (sha256
>> +         (base32 "1380s9k77g6q15by9fkxndczjk89q6xpz09jdrqip535xws2z3j8"))))
> ```

No only one space here, this is also handled by the indent script for me.

>
>
>>      (build-system python-build-system)
>>      (arguments
>>       '(#:phases
>>         (modify-phases %standard-phases
>> -         ;; Reported upstream: <https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/issues/1580>
>> -         ;; Not sure how to apply the suggested fix!?
>> +         ;; Reported upstream:
>> +         ;; <https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/issues/1580>.
>> +         ;; Disable the faulty test as the fix is unclear.
>
> Much better, thanks!
> In retrospect, I realize that I should have put the question in the
> commit message for a maintainer to read, not in the package definition.
> Would that have been better?!

No it's perfectly fine in the package declaration :)

Hope I'm not bothering you to much with this boring syntactic stuff :p

Thanks,

Mathieu