failed NO_PATCH NO_PATCH UNSUBMITTED empty_patch(None) · None tool calls · 0 s · fastapi/fastapi
♻️ Refactor internals to preserve `APIRouter` and `APIRoute` instances ## Pull Request ♻️ Refactor internals to preserve `APIRouter` and `APIRoute` instances Supersedes https://github.com/fastapi/fastapi/pull/4794 Unblocks :sparkles: SO MANY THINGS :sparkles: Before this, `router.include_router(other_router)` would take each path operation from `other_router` and "clone" it, or recreate it from scratch. This would mean that in the end there was only one top level router, part of the app. The way it is structured here is that there are a few additional classes to handle intermediate metadata for router and route inclusion. That way the information of "router X includes Y and Y includes Z" is stored somewhere, without affecting (recreating / clonning) the final route. ### Non Objective Dependencies for 404 Originally in the other PR I intended to support dependencies that would be executed even for 404, but that would conflict with the fact that a router could _not_ find a match, but the next router _did_ find a match. Executing dependencies in the router that did not find a match would not make sense, they could consume the request, body, etc. This original idea was discarded. ### Breaking Change Now `router.routes` is no longer a plain list of `APIRoute` objects, it can contain these intermediate objects that can contain additional routers, forming a tree. Any logic that depended on iterating on the `router.routes` directly would be affected, that logic cannot expect to be able to extract data from a plain list of routes, as it's no longer a plain list but a tree. Additionally, any logic that iterated on `router.routes` to modify them would now also see these new objects, and would not see all the routes in the app. `router.routes` should be considered an internal implementation detail, only passed around to the FastAPI functions that need it. ### Features * Adding routes after a router is included now works, they are reflected as they are not copied. * Including `subrouter` in `mainrouter` can be done before adding routes (path operations) to `subrouter`, because now the the entire object is stored instead of copying the routes. * As routes are not copied, in some cases that might save some memory. ### Alpha Features This is not documented yet, so it's not officially supported yet and could change in the future. But, as `APIRoute` and `APIRouter` instances are now preserved, they could be customized. `APIRouter` has two new methods, `.matches()` and `.handle()`, counterpart to the existing ones in `APIRoute`. With this a router could customize how it matches and handles requests. For example, it could match only requests that include some specific header, for example for handling versions in headers. Still, for now, consider this very experimental and potentially changing and breaking in the future. ### Future Features Enabled * Custom `APIRoute` subclasses (as desccribed above) * Custom `APIRouter` subclasses (as described above) * Dependencies per router * Exception handlers per router * Middleware per router * Other features planned <!-- Please start with a GitHub Discussion. Once a team member asks you to open a PR, create it and link the discussion here. Obvious typo fixes can be made in a PR without starting a discussion. --> Discussion: <!-- Link to the GitHub Discussion --> ## Description <!-- Write the description of your PR here --> ## AI Disclaimer Codex with GPT 5.5, through a lot of planning and research iterations, for weeks, then the same for the implementation, with too many iterations to count to clean up the implementation, what's supported and not, docs, types, etc. All code and tests manually reviewed by hand. <!-- If using AI, write here the prompt and model used --> <details> <summary>AI transcript</summary> <!-- Paste here the entire AI transcript --> </details> ## Checklist - [ ] This PR is an obvious typo fix, or it links to a GitHub Discussion for the proposed code change. - [x] I added tests for the change. - [x] The new or updated tests fail on the main branch and pass on this PR. - [x] Coverage stays at 100%. - [x] The documentation explains the change if needed.
| # | Tool | Arguments | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| No trace captured. | |||