Using these ideas, JWT can be used for way more sophisticated scenarios.

In those cases, several of those entities could have the same ID, let's say `foo` (a user `foo`, a car `foo`, and a blog post `foo`).

After checking all these things and ensuring the PR has the right labels, you can merge it.

## Dependabot PRs

Dependabot will create PRs to update dependencies for several things, and those PRs all look similar, but some are way more delicate than others.

### FastAPI Data Filtering { #fastapi-data-filtering }

Now, for FastAPI, it will see the return type and make sure that what you return includes **only** the fields that are declared in the type.

FastAPI does several things internally with Pydantic to make sure that those same rules of class inheritance are not used for the returned data filtering, otherwise you could end up returning much more data than what you expected.

The same way, you could have some dependencies with `yield` and some other dependencies with `return`, and have some of those depend on some of the others.

And you could have a single dependency that requires several other dependencies with `yield`, etc.

You can have any combinations of dependencies that you want.

**FastAPI** will make sure everything is run in the correct order.

/// note | Technical Details

            By default, after a dependency is called the first time in a request, if
            the dependency is declared again for the rest of the request (for example
            if the dependency is needed by several dependencies), the value will be
            re-used for the rest of the request.

            Set `use_cache` to `False` to disable this behavior and ensure the

 *
 * <p>Disadvantages compared to {@code long[]}:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>Memory footprint has a fixed overhead (about 24 bytes per instance).
 *   <li><i>Some</i> construction use cases force the data to be copied (though several construction
 *       APIs are offered that don't).
 *   <li>Can't be passed directly to methods that expect {@code long[]} (though the most common
 *       utilities do have replacements here).

 *
 * <p>Disadvantages compared to {@code int[]}:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>Memory footprint has a fixed overhead (about 24 bytes per instance).
 *   <li><i>Some</i> construction use cases force the data to be copied (though several construction
 *       APIs are offered that don't).
 *   <li>Can't be passed directly to methods that expect {@code int[]} (though the most common
 *       utilities do have replacements here).

  /**
   * Not checking the CA bit created a vulnerability in old OkHttp releases. It is exploited by
   * triggering different chains to be discovered by the TLS engine and our chain cleaner. In this
   * attack there's several different chains.
   *
   *
   * The victim's gets a non-CA certificate signed by a CA, and pins the CA root and/or
   * intermediate. This is business as usual.
   *
   * ```

 *   <li>To wrap nullable references for storage in a collection that does not support {@code null}
 *       (though there are <a
 *       href="https://github.com/google/guava/wiki/LivingWithNullHostileCollections">several other
 *       approaches to this</a> that should be considered first)
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p>A common alternative to using this class is to find or create a suitable <a

      suite.addTest(
          builder
              .withFeatures(
                  CollectionSize.ZERO,
                  CollectionSize.ONE,
                  CollectionSize.SEVERAL,
                  CollectionFeature.ALLOWS_NULL_QUERIES,
                  CollectionFeature.RESTRICTS_ELEMENTS,
                  CollectionFeature.KNOWN_ORDER,