feat(event_handler): add support for Pydantic models in Query and Header types

[tonnico]

Issue number: closes #7039
closes #5325

Summary

Changes

You can use pydantic BaseModel for Query and Header.

User experience

Grouping Query or Header params in one BaseModel.

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Disclaimer: We value your time and bandwidth. As such, any pull requests created on non-triaged issues might not be successful.

[anafalcao]

Hey @tonnico ! Thanks for opening this PR, we'll review it and get back to you

[leandrodamascena]

Hey @tonnico thanks a lot for working on this. I see we have some errors in the CI, can you fix them please and then we can start reviewing the code?

[tonnico]

I apologize to overlook make pr.

I still see some improvements and will fix the remaining issues.

[tonnico]

@leandrodamascena I fixed code smell and the remaining typing issues.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.45%. Comparing base (72bc404) to head (9c58ab3).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #7253      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    96.42%   96.45%   +0.03%     
===========================================
  Files          275      275              
  Lines        13055    13115      +60     
  Branches       974      987      +13     
===========================================
+ Hits         12588    12650      +62     
+ Misses         362      360       -2     
  Partials       105      105              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[leandrodamascena]

Hi @tonnico! Just a heads up, I'm reading through the code and running several end-to-end tests to make sure everything works. It might take a while, but we'll definitely try to merge as soon as possible.

[tonnico]

Thanks for the update. Take your time. It's a big PR, and I'd be really sad if I broke something.

Thanks for taking the time to test everything.

[leandrodamascena]

Hey @tonnico I'm running another round of end2end tests with more advanced tests to see if it's not breakiung edge cases. Again, thanks for your patience and amazing work here.

[leandrodamascena]

Hi @tonnico! I've thoroughly tested this PR and haven't found any critical issues, except for some minor refactorings we need to make here. Honestly, this is great work. I still feel like we're not covering some use cases when working with Header/Query, but so far we haven't broken anything, which is great. I'm investing more time to write some additional tests and ensure we're ready for the merge - or work on some additional feedback.

We've had a few other PRs making changes to the OpenAPI utility, and I want to agree with you on the following strategy for merging this PR:

1/ I've merged this PR #7227 - and it will be included in the next release on September 25th.

2/ We can work to merge THIS PR sometime after September 25th and include it in the release on October 7th.

3/ I'm adding the "on hold" label just to make it clear to everyone else.

Thank you very much for your work, patience, and time invested here.

Btw, I see there is a conflict in the tests files, but it's easy to fix.

[tonnico]

Thanks @leandrodamascena for the good starting point from your initial PR.

I just fixed the merge conflict.

[leandrodamascena]

Reviewing this now.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud