Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

[release/10.0] Fix minimal API validation for record structs#64517

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Open
github-actions wants to merge2 commits intorelease/10.0
base:release/10.0
Choose a base branch
Loading
frombackport/pr-64514-to-release/10.0

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actionsgithub-actionsbot commentedNov 24, 2025
edited by captainsafia
Loading

Backport of#64514 to release/10.0

/cc@captainsafia@copilot

Description

This backport updates the minimal API runtime validation logic to correctly treat user-defined value types—includingrecord struct parameters and nested properties—as complex types. Previously, the validation pipeline only considered classes complex, causing record structs without top-level validation attributes to be skipped entirely.

Fixes#64513

Customer Impact

Minimal API users defining request DTOs asrecord struct were unable to rely on validation attributes inside those types. This led to missing validation errors and inconsistent behavior between classes and record structs. The fix brings record struct behavior in line with classes and improves model consistency without requiring user code changes.

Regression?

  • Yes
  • No

Risk

  • High
  • Medium
  • Low

The change expands the definition of “complex type” to include non-primitive value types. This aligns with user expectations and matches typical model binding behavior. Existing special-cased primitive and framework types remain excluded, and new automated tests cover the updated behavior.

Verification

  • Manual (required)
  • Automated

Packaging changes reviewed?

  • Yes
  • No
  • N/A

CopilotAIand others added2 commitsNovember 24, 2025 21:45
…IsComplexTypeCo-authored-by: captainsafia <1857993+captainsafia@users.noreply.github.com>
@captainsafiacaptainsafia added the Servicing-considerShiproom approval is required for the issue labelNov 24, 2025
@dotnet-policy-service
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @@github-actions[bot]. Please make sure you've updated the PR description to use theShiproom Template. Also, make sure this PR is not marked as a draft and is ready-to-merge.

To learn more about how to prepare a servicing PRclick here.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

Servicing-considerShiproom approval is required for the issue

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@captainsafia

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp