feat(event_handler): add support for Pydantic models in Query and Header types

[tonnico]

Issue number: closes #7039
closes #5325

Summary

Changes

You can use pydantic BaseModel for Query and Header.

User experience

Grouping Query or Header params in one BaseModel.

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Disclaimer: We value your time and bandwidth. As such, any pull requests created on non-triaged issues might not be successful.

[anafalcao]

Hey @tonnico ! Thanks for opening this PR, we'll review it and get back to you

[leandrodamascena]

Hey @tonnico thanks a lot for working on this. I see we have some errors in the CI, can you fix them please and then we can start reviewing the code?

[tonnico]

I apologize to overlook make pr.

I still see some improvements and will fix the remaining issues.

[tonnico]

@leandrodamascena I fixed code smell and the remaining typing issues.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.45%. Comparing base (d89910c) to head (06b9938).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #7253      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    96.42%   96.45%   +0.03%     
===========================================
  Files          275      275              
  Lines        13055    13115      +60     
  Branches       974      987      +13     
===========================================
+ Hits         12588    12650      +62     
+ Misses         362      360       -2     
  Partials       105      105              

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[tonnico]

Thanks @leandrodamascena for the good starting point from your initial PR.

I just fixed the merge conflict.

[leandrodamascena]

Reviewing this now.

[github-actions]

⚠️Large PR detected⚠️

Please consider breaking into smaller PRs to avoid significant review delays. Ignore if this PR has naturally grown to this size after reviews.

[leandrodamascena]

Hi @tonnico! Thank you so much for your patience while waiting for my final review. I went through 4 or 5 rounds of review. I tried to create a scenario where I could break the code/functionality, and fortunately, I couldn't. I ran e2e tests with this in different scenarios.

This code is complex. You've made some important refactorings, and I can think of two or three different ways to do this implementation with the current codebase. But, to be honest, I don't know if I could do it better than you did here. The abstraction you create for some functions, the refactoring to reduce complexity, and the clarity of the code are very good. I hope I'm not missing any major potential problem I haven't seen, but our current tests are passing and that brings more peace.

That's really a super PR, thanks a lot. I sent a commit with some changes in the doc and we are ready to merge tomorrow or Friday.

THANKS A LOT! APPROVED!!!!!

[tonnico]

Wow, thanks so much for your review and the nice feedback! Appreciate all the time you spent testing and checking different scenarios. Glad it held up. Looking forward to the merge!

[github-actions]

⚠️Large PR detected⚠️

Please consider breaking into smaller PRs to avoid significant review delays. Ignore if this PR has naturally grown to this size after reviews.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[github-actions]

⚠️Large PR detected⚠️

Please consider breaking into smaller PRs to avoid significant review delays. Ignore if this PR has naturally grown to this size after reviews.