Any news about this PR?

Any possibility of a merge @tiangolo ? I would also be interested in this support being added / long term.

Please merge this.

can you merge this?

@KimigaiiWuyi, thanks for your interest and efforts!

Currently people use schema_extra as a workaround to pass parameters to Field that are accepted by Pydantic's Field, but not accepted by SQLModel's Field.

As an example:

class A(SQLModel):
    id_: int = Field(schema_extra={"validation_alias": "id"})

With pure Pydantic you would just pass it directly:

class A(BaseModel):
    id_: int = Field(validation_alias="id")

But SQLModel's Field doesn't have such parameter and we need to use that workaround.

Your implementation treats schema_extra as a duplicate of json_schema_extra and overrides it if both are present. But it may lead to issues in this case (stupid example just to demonstrate the idea):

class A(SQLModel):
    id_: int = Field(schema_extra={"validation_alias": "id"}, json_schema_extra={"type": "number"})

In the example above, the validation_alias will be ignored with your implementation.

In this PR we can just modify it to add json_schema_extra to json_extra:

    current_schema_extra = schema_extra or {}
    if json_schema_extra:
        current_schema_extra["json_schema_extra"] = json_schema_extra

In long perspective we need to deprecate schema_extra parameter and introduce something like pd_extra_params (Pydantic extra parameters) parameter so that people would be able to pass parameters not accepted by SQLModel's Field

Also, we need to add test to verify that new json_schema_extra field works (fields are added to json schema)

Indeed, you are correct. Although this situation is rare, it must be taken into consideration.