From 9b2310a7d3eff90d3ef8dbf4e0766729e6f9a160 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jerry Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:06:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fixed typo (#1456) stictness -> strictness --- docs/usage/validation_decorator.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/usage/validation_decorator.md b/docs/usage/validation_decorator.md index 273ce88..9012134 100644 --- a/docs/usage/validation_decorator.md +++ b/docs/usage/validation_decorator.md @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ A few notes: * `max` has no type annotation, so will be considered as `Any` by the decorator Type coercion like this can be extremely helpful but also confusing or not desired, -see [below](#coercion-and-stictness) for a discussion of `validate_arguments`'s limitations in this regard. +see [below](#coercion-and-strictness) for a discussion of `validate_arguments`'s limitations in this regard. ## Function Signatures @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ from `ValueError` **not** `TypeError` which may be unexpected since python would or missing arguments. This may be addressed in future by either allow a custom error or raising a different exception by default, or both. -### Coercion and Stictness +### Coercion and Strictness *pydantic* currently leans on the side of trying to coerce types rather than raise an error if a type is wrong, see [model data conversion](models.md#data-conversion) and `validate_arguments` is no different.