Validation results refactoring: centralize results for different reused origins, use _pydantic_errors_to_validation_results more

[yarikoptic]

See individual commits messages for more information.

Please check (especially @TheChymera ) if my use of _pydantic_errors_to_validation_results is correct -- I am not sure any test is hitting that code path at all - can someone come up with a unittest to hit it?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 89.15%. Comparing base (8e67482) to head (d8e0558).
Report is 763 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
dandi/files/bases.py	66.66%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1176      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.15%   89.15%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          76       76              
  Lines        9510     9518       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits         8479     8486       +7     
- Misses       1031     1032       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	89.15% <85.71%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[jwodder]

Shouldn't this PR be labelled "internal" instead of "patch"? None of these changes appear to be externally visible.

[TheChymera]

Looks good to me (in addition to #1176 (comment) ). The partial() definitions are pretty convenient. As for tests not hitting those two lines, I guess the “problem” is that nothing in our test suite is triggering those exceptions. This looks more like failsafe code, in case something that should never break by some coincidence does 🤔 not exactly sure how to make it break without breaking in other places before.

[yarikoptic]

Shouldn't this PR be labelled "internal" instead of "patch"? None of these changes appear to be externally visible.

my thinking was "because it changes visible to user results" due to " use _pydantic_errors_to_validation_results more". but indeed, I guess, could just be internal.

[yarikoptic]

This looks more like failsafe code, in case something that should never break by some coincidence does not exactly sure how to make it break without breaking in other places before.

hm, shouldn't that get_validation_errors case be triggered on any asset with invalid according to pydantic model? But let's continue on that in a separate issue

[yarikoptic]

ok, suggestions incorporated, issue filed, this is green -- let's proceed

[yarikoptic]

I think it might have been closed in error. Should be redone.

[yarikoptic]

too many conflicts and will be superseded by

• Overhauling validation results to get them closer to cover different types of validators #1514