- tutorial/body-nested-models.md
    - tutorial/schema-extra-example.md
    - tutorial/extra-data-types.md
    - tutorial/cookie-params.md
    - tutorial/header-params.md
    - tutorial/cookie-param-models.md
    - tutorial/header-param-models.md
    - tutorial/response-model.md
    - tutorial/extra-models.md
    - tutorial/response-status-code.md
    - tutorial/request-forms.md

            }
            responseData.setHttpStatusCode(httpStatusCode);
            for (final Header header : response.getAllHeaders()) {
                responseData.addMetaData(header.getName(), header.getValue());
            }
            responseData.setMimeType(contentType);
            final Header contentLengthHeader = response.getFirstHeader("Content-Length");
            if (contentLengthHeader == null) {

### Typannotationen und Tooling

Sehen wir uns zunächst an, wie Editor, mypy und andere Tools dies sehen würden.

`BaseUser` verfügt über die Basis-Felder. Dann erbt `UserIn` von `BaseUser` und fügt das Feld `Passwort` hinzu, sodass dass es nun alle Felder beider Modelle hat.

Wir annotieren den Funktionsrückgabetyp als `BaseUser`, geben aber tatsächlich eine `UserIn`-Instanz zurück.

OpenAPI fügte auch die Felder `example` und `examples` zu anderen Teilen der Spezifikation hinzu:

* <a href="https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/main/versions/3.1.0.md#parameter-object" class="external-link" target="_blank">`Parameter Object` (in der Spezifikation)</a>, das verwendet wurde von FastAPIs:
    * `Path()`
    * `Query()`
    * `Header()`
    * `Cookie()`

                                <%-- Card Header --%>
                            <div class="card-header">
                                <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/crud/header.jsp"></jsp:include>
                            </div>
                                <%-- Card Body --%>

		if Requested(test.Header) != got {
			// Test if result matches.
			t.Errorf("Requested mismatch, want %v, got %v", Requested(test.Header), got)
		}
		got = got && SSEC.IsRequested(test.Header)
		if got != test.Expected {
			t.Errorf("SSE-C: Test %d: Wanted %v but got %v", i, test.Expected, got)
		}
	}
}

var kmsIsRequestedTests = []struct {
	Header   http.Header
	Expected bool
}{

    }

    /** Returns all of the cookies from a set of HTTP response headers. */
    @JvmStatic
    fun parseAll(
      url: HttpUrl,
      headers: Headers,
    ): List<Cookie> {
      val cookieStrings = headers.values("Set-Cookie")
      var cookies: MutableList<Cookie>? = null

      for (i in 0 until cookieStrings.size) {

                                <%-- Card Header --%>
                            <div class="card-header">
                                <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/crud/header.jsp"></jsp:include>
                            </div>
                                <%-- Card Body --%>

def test_header_repr_str():
    assert repr(Header("teststr")) == "Header(teststr)"


def test_header_repr_none():
    assert repr(Header(None)) == "Header(None)"


def test_header_repr_ellipsis():
    assert repr(Header(...)) == IsOneOf(
        "Header(PydanticUndefined)",
        # TODO: remove when deprecating Pydantic v1
        "Header(Ellipsis)",
    )


def test_header_repr_number():

Symmetrically, interceptors can rewrite response headers and transform the response body. This is generally more dangerous than rewriting request headers because it may violate the webserver's expectations!

If you're in a tricky situation and prepared to deal with the consequences, rewriting response headers is a powerful way to work around problems. For example, you can fix a server's misconfigured `Cache-Control` response header to enable better response caching: