fix(parser): fallback to validate_python when using type[Model] and nested models

[leandrodamascena]

Issue number: #5303

Summary

Changes

In Pydantic v2, when validating a model that has a field with a type of another model can break the validation. This limitation/bug in Pydantic is causing problems for customers trying to validate JSON against complex model structures

To work around this issue, we are modifying the validation code to use a try/except block. If a NotImplementedError is raised during JSON validation, we can fall back to using validate_python instead.

I added additional tests to make sure we are covering this part of code and also a e2e test.

User experience

import json
from typing import Any, Dict, Type, Union

from pydantic import BaseModel

from aws_lambda_powertools.utilities.parser import parse
from aws_lambda_powertools.utilities.typing import LambdaContext

AnyInheritedModel = Union[Type[BaseModel], BaseModel]
RawDictOrModel = Union[Dict[str, Any], AnyInheritedModel]

#payload = {"name": "powertools", "profile": {"description": "python", "size": "XXL"}}

class ModelWithUnionType(BaseModel):
    name: str
    profile: RawDictOrModel


def lambda_handler(event: ModelWithUnionType, context: LambdaContext):
    event = json.dumps(event)

    event_parsed = parse(event=event, model=ModelWithUnionType)

    return {"name": event_parsed.name}

Checklist

If your change doesn't seem to apply, please leave them unchecked.

• Meet tenets criteria
• I have performed a self-review of this change
• Changes have been tested
• Changes are documented
• PR title follows conventional commit semantics

Is this a breaking change?

RFC issue number:

Checklist:

• Migration process documented
• Implement warnings (if it can live side by side)

Acknowledgment

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.20%. Comparing base (ece20f8) to head (267e159).
Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #5313   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    96.20%   96.20%           
========================================
  Files          229      229           
  Lines        10753    10761    +8     
  Branches      2002     2001    -1     
========================================
+ Hits         10345    10353    +8     
  Misses         322      322           
  Partials        86       86           

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

[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 SonarCloud