From: Sebastián Ramírez Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 20:37:07 +0000 (+0400) Subject: 📝 Tweak wording in `docs/tutorial/fastapi/multiple-models.md` (#674) X-Git-Tag: 0.0.9~7 X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=9d3ca01dd09d77f4bcff000621f683936d9fe3ee;p=thirdparty%2Ffastapi%2Fsqlmodel.git 📝 Tweak wording in `docs/tutorial/fastapi/multiple-models.md` (#674) Co-authored-by: Luis Benitez --- diff --git a/docs/tutorial/fastapi/multiple-models.md b/docs/tutorial/fastapi/multiple-models.md index c37fad38..6845b986 100644 --- a/docs/tutorial/fastapi/multiple-models.md +++ b/docs/tutorial/fastapi/multiple-models.md @@ -53,11 +53,11 @@ Here's the weird thing, the `id` currently seems also "optional". 🤔 This is because in our **SQLModel** class we declare the `id` with `Optional[int]`, because it could be `None` in memory until we save it in the database and we finally get the actual ID. -But in the responses, we would always send a model from the database, and it would **always have an ID**. So the `id` in the responses could be declared as required too. +But in the responses, we always send a model from the database, so it **always has an ID**. So the `id` in the responses can be declared as required. -This would mean that our application is making the compromise with the clients that if it sends a hero, it would for sure have an `id` with a value, it would not be `None`. +This means that our application is making the promise to the clients that if it sends a hero, it will for sure have an `id` with a value, it will not be `None`. -### Why Is it Important to Compromise with the Responses +### Why Is it Important to Have a Contract for Responses The ultimate goal of an API is for some **clients to use it**.