feat(sdk): upgrade to Pydantic v2

[IamAbbey]

V2 Notes

1. datetime validation now does not include timezone by default
   Custom datatype introduced to for this TimeZoneDateTime.

   from datetime import datetime
   from pydantic import BaseModel
   
   class Foo(BaseModel):
      bar: datetime
   
   print(Foo(bar="1664200289671"))
   #v1: bar=datetime.datetime(2022, 9, 26, 13, 51, 29, 671000, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)
   #v2: bar=datetime.datetime(2022, 9, 26, 13, 51, 29, 671000)

A Fix was made by Pydantic, so datetime now includes timezone info by default.

2. date validation: the input value
   provided for a date field must have a nonzero time component. For a
   timestamp to parse into a field of type date, the time components must all be zero. Else date_from_datetime_inexact
   error is raised

   • Implication for youtrack_sdk is that some date type have to convert to custom date data type UnixMidDayDate
     e.g DateIssueCustomField

3. parse_obj renamed to model_validate

4. parse_obj_as replaced with TypeAdapter

5. BaseModel config now uses ConfigDict

6. Need to provide None default value for optional fields

7. PydanticValueError replaced with PydanticUserError

8. BaseModel.schema replaced BaseModel.model_json_schema

9. BaseModel.dict replaced BaseModel.model_dump

10. BaseModel.construct replaced BaseModel.model_construct

11. from_unix_seconds was removed in pydantic v2, so the implementation is now
    copied to .helpers

[zyv]

Actually I don't understand why you need this in the first place:

https://docs.pydantic.dev/latest/usage/types/datetime/#validation-of-datetime-types

So my suggestion is to meet to discuss this date situation. To me this looks very fishy irrespectively of the code quality of the implementation.

Unfortunately, you didn't explain what the problem here was with the examples in the PR description, but tried to show your solutions assuming that they are correct.

I hope that we can find a better solution here. Could you please prepare for the call, by showing how it worked before on which inputs and how it works now, which makes problems.

[zyv]

Explanation from the meeting: in the past this was in the type, here it is necessary, because the validation result depends on another field. Decision: @IamAbbey will check if it's possible to do it in V2 in the type. If not, then this way will be accepted.

[IamAbbey]

I am at the moment still unable to find possible way to do it in v2 to access other field value using Annotated Types or in type.

[zyv]

pydantic/pydantic#6732

[zyv]

Bottom line: maybe they will add it, but until then, we can use model-bound validator.

[IamAbbey]

New fixup commits added to address open suggestions

[zyv]

/rebase

[zyv]

I've pushed a WIP, in as far as I'm concerned that's fine now.

[IamAbbey]

/rebase

[catcombo]

Tested 👍

[IamAbbey]

/rebase