He estado evitando la creación de un nuevo framework durante varios años. Primero intenté resolver todas las funcionalidades cubiertas por **FastAPI** usando muchos frameworks diferentes, plug-ins y herramientas.

	for i := range totalParts {
		// hard coding hash and algo value for the checksum, Since we are benchmarking the parsing of xl.meta the magnitude doesn't affect the test,
		// The magnitude doesn't make a difference, only the size does.
		xlMeta.AddTestObjectCheckSum(i+1, BLAKE2b512, "a23f5eff248c4372badd9f3b2455a285cd4ca86c3d9a570b091d3fc5cd7ca6d9484bbea3f8c5d8d4f84daae96874419eda578fd736455334afbac2c924b3915a")

	// By default DB.DryRun should false
	if DB.DryRun {
		t.Fatal("Failed expect DB.DryRun to be false")
	}

	if DB.Dialector.Name() == "sqlserver" {
		t.Skip("Skip SQL Server for this test, because it too difference with other dialects.")
	}

	date, _ := time.ParseInLocation("2006-01-02", "2021-10-18", time.Local)

	// find
	sql := DB.ToSQL(func(tx *gorm.DB) *gorm.DB {

   * addresses, the output follows <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952">RFC 5952</a> section
   * 4. The main difference is that this method uses "::" for zero compression, while Java's version
   * uses the uncompressed form (except on Android, where the zero compression is also done). The
   * other difference is that this method outputs any scope ID in the format that it was provided at

	policiesToUpdate := set.CreateStringSet(policies...)
	var newPolicySet set.StringSet
	newPolicyMapping := mp
	if isAttach {
		// new policies to attach => inputPolicies - existing (set difference)
		policiesToUpdate = policiesToUpdate.Difference(existingPolicySet)
		// validate that new policies to add are defined.
		for _, p := range policiesToUpdate.ToSlice() {
			if _, found := cache.iamPolicyDocsMap[p]; !found {

     * Another way to express this signature would be to bound <V> by @NonNull and accept
     * LF<? extends @Nullable V>. That might be better: There's currently no difference between the
     * outputs users get when calling this with <Foo> and calling it with <@Nullable Foo>. The only
     * difference is that calling it with <Foo> won't work when an input Future has a @Nullable
     * type. So why even make that error possible by giving callers the choice?

Você pode utilizar todas as ferramentas e funcionalidades de validação que são utilizadas nos modelos do Pydantic, como tipos de dados diferentes e validações adicionei com `Field()`.

//// tab | Pydantic v2

{* ../../docs_src/settings/tutorial001.py hl[2,5:8,11] *}

////

//// tab | Pydantic v1

/// info

{* ../../docs_src/sql_databases/tutorial001_an_py310.py ln[14:18] hl[14:15,17:18] *}

Usar `check_same_thread=False` permite a FastAPI usar la misma base de datos SQLite en diferentes hilos. Esto es necesario ya que **una sola request** podría usar **más de un hilo** (por ejemplo, en dependencias).

If you can choose a more recent version of Python for your project, you will be able to take advantage of that extra simplicity.

In all the docs there are examples compatible with each version of Python (when there's a difference).

For example "**Python 3.6+**" means it's compatible with Python 3.6 or above (including 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, etc). And "**Python 3.9+**" means it's compatible with Python 3.9 or above (including 3.10, etc).

Se você pode escolher uma versão mais recente do Python para o seu projeto, você poderá aproveitar isso ao seu favor.

Em todos os documentos existem exemplos compatíveis com cada versão do Python (quando existem diferenças).