blank_issues_enabled: false
contact_links:
  - name: Security Contact
    about: Please report security vulnerabilities to ******@****.***
  - name: Question or Problem
    about: Ask a question or ask about a problem in GitHub Discussions.
    url: https://github.com/tiangolo/fastapi/discussions/categories/questions
  - name: Feature Request

Konkret geht es darum, Uvicorn, Starlette und FastAPI miteinander zu vergleichen (neben vielen anderen Tools).

Je einfacher das Problem, welches durch das Tool gelöst wird, desto besser ist die Performanz. Und die meisten Benchmarks testen nicht die zusätzlichen Funktionen, welche das Tool bietet.

Die Hierarchie ist wie folgt:

* **Uvicorn**: ein ASGI-Server

When you check the benchmarks, it is common to see several tools of different types compared as equivalent.

Specifically, to see Uvicorn, Starlette and FastAPI compared together (among many other tools).

The simpler the problem solved by the tool, the better performance it will get. And most of the benchmarks don't test the additional features provided by the tool.

The hierarchy is like:

* **Uvicorn**: an ASGI server

you have any **mismatch** in the data used.

So, you would **detect many errors** very early in the development cycle instead of having to wait for the errors to show up to your final users in production and then trying to debug where the problem is. ✨...

    {!> ../../../docs_src/response_model/tutorial002.py!}
    ```

Now, whenever a browser is creating a user with a password, the API will return the same password in the response.

In this case, it might not be a problem, because it's the same user sending the password.

But if we use the same model for another *path operation*, we could be sending our user's passwords to every client.

!!! danger

And it generates OpenAPI schemas.

That's how it works in Flask, Starlette, Responder, etc.

But then, we have again the problem of having a micro-syntax, inside of a Python string (a big YAML).

        Bevorzugen Sie die `Annotated`-Version, falls möglich.

    ```Python hl_lines="7"
    {!> ../../../docs_src/path_params_numeric_validations/tutorial002.py!}
    ```

Aber bedenken Sie, dass Sie dieses Problem nicht haben, wenn Sie `Annotated` verwenden, da Sie nicht die Funktions-Parameter-Defaultwerte für `Query()` oder `Path()` verwenden.

=== "Python 3.9+"

    ```Python hl_lines="10"

## Accessing the request body in an exception handler

!!! tip
    To solve this same problem, it's probably a lot easier to use the `body` in a custom handler for `RequestValidationError` ([Handling Errors](../tutorial/handling-errors.md#use-the-requestvalidationerror-body){.internal-link target=_blank}).

    ```

Immer wenn jetzt ein Browser einen Benutzer mit Passwort erzeugt, gibt die API dasselbe Passwort in der Response zurück.

Hier ist das möglicherweise kein Problem, da es derselbe Benutzer ist, der das Passwort sendet.

Aber wenn wir dasselbe Modell für eine andere *Pfadoperation* verwenden, könnten wir das Passwort dieses Benutzers zu jedem Client schicken.

!!! danger "Gefahr"

Of course, there are some cases where there's no problem in running the previous steps multiple times, in that case, it's a lot easier to handle.

!!! tip