GITHUB . COM {}

Matching Content Categories {📚}

• Photography
• Insurance
• Mobile Technology & AI

Content Management System {📝}

What CMS is github.com built with?

Github.com relies on WORDPRESS.

Traffic Estimate {📈}

What is the average monthly size of github.com audience?

🚀🌠 Tremendous Traffic: 10M - 20M visitors per month


Based on our best estimate, this website will receive around 10,000,019 visitors per month in the current month.
However, some sources were not loaded, we suggest to reload the page to get complete results.

check SE Ranking
check Ahrefs
check Similarweb
check Ubersuggest
check Semrush

How Does Github.com Make Money? {💸}

Subscription Packages {💳}

How Much Does Github.com Make? {💰}

Subscription Packages {💳}

Prices on github.com are in US Dollars ($). They range from $4.00/month to $21.00/month.
We estimate that the site has approximately 4,989,889 paying customers.
The estimated monthly recurring revenue (MRR) is $20,957,532.
The estimated annual recurring revenues (ARR) are $251,490,385.

Wordpress Themes and Plugins {🎨}

What WordPress theme does this site use?

It is strange but we were not able to detect any theme on the page.

What WordPress plugins does this website use?

It is strange but we were not able to detect any plugins on the page.

Keywords {🔍}

root, samuelcolvin, model, dmontagu, commented, errors, validation, loc, error, change, validator, contributor, edited, edits, pydantic, issue, field, sign, obj, location, validatorroot, feature, koxudaxi, member, author, match, custom, types, implement, guess, added, wanted, type, sake, errorwrapper, loginmodel, email, make, navigation, open, public, code, pull, requests, actions, security, closed, specific, nomenclature, point,

Topics {✒️}

dmontagu edits contributor custom root type handling root errors custom-root models public openapi spec custom root types technical implementation challenges __root__/entire-model validator final error format comment metadata assignees entire-model validation similarly confusing externally type projects samuelcolvin mentioned open code validation errors implementation information separate issue root validator openapi spec added drop support __root__ validators invalid data validationerror details single class backwards incompatible feature offers considered assigning error radical proposal fields passed function/method unified interface def login_view request request frontend developer big assumption optionally incorporate causing conflicts wanted makes sense require access effort required renewed effort 100% complete relationships loc includes theory loc

Payment Methods {📊}

• Braintree

Questions {❓}

• Already have an account?
• Also what do other libraries do?
• I'll open a separate issue to discuss the implications of adding the model name to ErrorWrapper, but, any thoughts on this in the context of handling root errors?
• So you're basically suggesting prefixing loc with the model name?
• Thoughts?
• What do others think?

Schema {🗺️}

DiscussionForumPosting:
      context:https://schema.org
      headline:Root Errors and "__obj__" vs "__root__"
      articleBody:Currently [here](https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/blob/master/pydantic/main.py#L343) (for invalid data to `parse_obj`) and [here](https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/blob/master/pydantic/main.py#L361) (in `parse_raw`) we use `'__obj__'` as the location for errors to indicate an error which is general to the model, not specific to a field. We should change this in v1 to `__root__` to better match other nomenclature, eg. custom root types, where we use `__root__`. We should also implement at some point entire model validation, as discussed at https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/issues/691#issuecomment-518318096. I guess to match the above naming, we should do this using a special value to a validator `@validator('__root__')`. If this raised an error it would end up in `ValidationError` details with `'location': '__root__'`, (Unless it's a "`@validator('__root__')`" validator for a submodel, when obviously it should have the location of that model. Perhaps it would would be nice to have a special decorator `@root_validator` which is an alias of `@validator('__root__')`, we should support multiple root validators either as a result of inheritance or on a single class. I guess the `__obj__` > `__root__` change must happen with v1 and the new root validator could go in a later release, but we should be sure we won't need other backwards incompatible changes to implement the root validator. Thoughts?
      author:
         url:https://github.com/samuelcolvin
         type:Person
         name:samuelcolvin
      datePublished:2019-08-09T16:20:57.000Z
      interactionStatistic:
         type:InteractionCounter
         interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
         userInteractionCount:14
      url:https://github.com/729/pydantic/issues/729
      context:https://schema.org
      headline:Root Errors and "__obj__" vs "__root__"
      articleBody:Currently [here](https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/blob/master/pydantic/main.py#L343) (for invalid data to `parse_obj`) and [here](https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/blob/master/pydantic/main.py#L361) (in `parse_raw`) we use `'__obj__'` as the location for errors to indicate an error which is general to the model, not specific to a field. We should change this in v1 to `__root__` to better match other nomenclature, eg. custom root types, where we use `__root__`. We should also implement at some point entire model validation, as discussed at https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/issues/691#issuecomment-518318096. I guess to match the above naming, we should do this using a special value to a validator `@validator('__root__')`. If this raised an error it would end up in `ValidationError` details with `'location': '__root__'`, (Unless it's a "`@validator('__root__')`" validator for a submodel, when obviously it should have the location of that model. Perhaps it would would be nice to have a special decorator `@root_validator` which is an alias of `@validator('__root__')`, we should support multiple root validators either as a result of inheritance or on a single class. I guess the `__obj__` > `__root__` change must happen with v1 and the new root validator could go in a later release, but we should be sure we won't need other backwards incompatible changes to implement the root validator. Thoughts?
      author:
         url:https://github.com/samuelcolvin
         type:Person
         name:samuelcolvin
      datePublished:2019-08-09T16:20:57.000Z
      interactionStatistic:
         type:InteractionCounter
         interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
         userInteractionCount:14
      url:https://github.com/729/pydantic/issues/729
Person:
      url:https://github.com/samuelcolvin
      name:samuelcolvin
      url:https://github.com/samuelcolvin
      name:samuelcolvin
InteractionCounter:
      interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
      userInteractionCount:14
      interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
      userInteractionCount:14

External Links {🔗}(2)

• Profit of https://github.blog
• How much income is https://www.githubstatus.com/ earning monthly?

Analytics and Tracking {📊}

• Site Verification - Google

Libraries {📚}

• Clipboard.js
• D3.js
• Lodash

Emails and Hosting {✉️}

Mail Servers:

• aspmx.l.google.com
• alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
• alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
• alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
• alt4.aspmx.l.google.com

Name Servers:

• dns1.p08.nsone.net
• dns2.p08.nsone.net
• dns3.p08.nsone.net
• dns4.p08.nsone.net
• ns-1283.awsdns-32.org
• ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk
• ns-421.awsdns-52.com
• ns-520.awsdns-01.net