It would also mean that if you get data from the `Request` object directly (for example, read the body) it won't be validated, converted or documented (with OpenAPI, for the automatic API user interface) by FastAPI.

Although any other parameter declared normally (for example, the body with a Pydantic model) would still be validated, converted, annotated, etc.

In this case, we pass a dependency function `get_current_active_user` to `Security` (the same way we would do with `Depends`).

But we also pass a `list` of scopes, in this case with just one scope: `items` (it could have more).

     *
     * - Any kind of Error from a listener. Even if we could distinguish that case (by exposing some
     * extra state from AbstractFuture), our options are limited: A call to setException() would be
     * a no-op. We could log, but if that's what we really want, we should modify
     * AbstractFuture.executeListener to do so, since that method would have the ability to continue
     * to execute other listeners.
     *

   * FeatureSpecificTestSuiteBuilder.suppressing()}.
   */
  /*
   * TODO(cpovirk): or we could make HOLES_FORBIDDEN a feature. Or we could declare that
   * implementations are permitted to throw IAE if a hole is requested, and we could update
   * test*Hole to permit IAE. (But might this ignore genuine bugs?) But see the TODO above
   * testLower, which could make this all unnecessary
   */
  public static Method[] getHoleMethods() {

```

</div>

/// tip

With `passlib`, you could even configure it to be able to read passwords created by **Django**, a **Flask** security plug-in or many others.

So, you would be able to, for example, share the same data from a Django application in a database with a FastAPI application. Or gradually migrate a Django application using the same database.

        Did you *actually* encounter the need for this enhancement in a real-world scenario, or does
        it just seem like a sensible behavior for the feature to have?


        Before we make significant changes to existing features in Guava, we really want to be sure
        that it's for a use case that actually comes up in the real world. We want to hear the
        real-world use case so the community can discuss and debate whether this feature is actually

     * implement Function<A, B>, as discussed in a class-level comment), it would make some sense to
     * perform runtime null checks on the input and output. (That would also make NullPointerTester
     * happy!) However, since we didn't do that for many years, we're not about to start now.
     * (Runtime checks could be particularly bad for users of LegacyConverter.)
     *

You could create a `CustomORJSONResponse`. The main thing you have to do is create a `Response.render(content)` method that returns the content as `bytes`:

{* ../../docs_src/custom_response/tutorial009c.py hl[9:14,17] *}

Now instead of returning:

```json
{"message": "Hello World"}
```

...this response will return:

```json
{

        Did you *actually* encounter the need for this feature in a real-world scenario, or is it
        just a feature that seems like a sensible addition to Guava?


        Before new features get added to Guava, we really want to be sure that it's for a use case
        that actually comes up in the real world. We want to hear the real-world use case so the

This was designed this way mainly to allow using the same objects "yielded" by dependencies inside of background tasks, because the exit code would be executed after the background tasks were finished.