`OAuth2PasswordRequestForm` is that `OAuth2PasswordRequestFormStrict` requires the
    client to send the form field `grant_type` with the value `"password"`, which
    is required in the OAuth2 specification (it seems that for no particular reason),
    while for `OAuth2PasswordRequestForm` `grant_type` is optional.

    Read more about it in the

<a href="https://fastapi.tiangolo.com/fastapi-people/#sponsors" class="external-link" target="_blank">נותני חסות אחרים</a>

## דעות

"_[...] I'm using **FastAPI** a ton these days. [...] I'm actually planning to use it for all of my team's **ML services at Microsoft**. Some of them are getting integrated into the core **Windows** product and some **Office** products._"

Você pode criar sua própria classe de resposta, herdando de `Response` e usando essa nova classe.

Por exemplo, vamos supor que você queira utilizar o <a href="https://github.com/ijl/orjson" class="external-link" target="_blank">`orjson`</a>, mas com algumas configurações personalizadas que não estão incluídas na classe `ORJSONResponse`.

    * If it's the first translation for that language, it will have additional `mkdocs.yml` files, for those cases follow the instructions below.
* The PR doesn't add any additional or extraneous files.
* The translation seems to have a similar structure as the original English file.
* The translation doesn't seem to change the original content, for example with obvious additional documentation sections.

## Vélemények

"_[...] I'm using **FastAPI** a ton these days. [...] I'm actually planning to use it for all of my team's **ML services at Microsoft**. Some of them are getting integrated into the core **Windows** product and some **Office** products._"

Você pode instalar todas essas dependências com `pip install fastapi[all]`.

## Licença

## Opiniones

"_[...] I'm using **FastAPI** a ton these days. [...] I'm actually planning to use it for all of my team's **ML services at Microsoft**. Some of them are getting integrated into the core **Windows** product and some **Office** products._"

      this.path = checkNotNull(path);
      this.options = options.clone();
      this.followLinks = followLinks(this.options);
      // TODO(cgdecker): validate the provided options... for example, just WRITE seems wrong
    }

    private static boolean followLinks(OpenOption[] options) {
      for (OpenOption option : options) {
        if (option == NOFOLLOW_LINKS) {
          return false;
        }
      }

      this.path = checkNotNull(path);
      this.options = options.clone();
      this.followLinks = followLinks(this.options);
      // TODO(cgdecker): validate the provided options... for example, just WRITE seems wrong
    }

    private static boolean followLinks(OpenOption[] options) {
      for (OpenOption option : options) {
        if (option == NOFOLLOW_LINKS) {
          return false;
        }
      }

        return !Modifier.isStatic(enclosingMethod.getModifiers());
      } else {
        // Strictly, this doesn't necessarily indicate a hidden 'this' in the case of
        // static initializer. But there seems no way to tell in that case. :(
        // This may cause issues when an anonymous class is created inside a static initializer,
        // and the class's constructor's first parameter happens to be the enclosing class.