dictdiffer: deep diff of dicts in lists #68669
Open
+229
−14
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tacerus
force-pushed
the
dictdiffer-listofdicts
branch
from
f0abff8 to
b3c5abb
Compare
So far, lists would always be compared as a whole - in case of lists containing dicts as elements, this would cause lots of output even if only parts of the contained dicts changed. Allow matching of lists with consistently keyed dicts. We do have listdiffer, but custom logic was implemented as importing listdiffer in dictdiffer would cause a circular import. Signed-off-by: Georg Pfuetzenreuter <georg.pfuetzenreuter@suse.com>
tacerus
force-pushed
the
dictdiffer-listofdicts
branch
from
b3c5abb to
4df756b
Compare
bdrx312
reviewed
Feb 1, 2026
Comment on lines
+101
to
+108
| list_dict_matchers | ||
| List of keys to consider for deep comparison of dicts inside a list. | ||
| If not specified or if not all of the dicts contained in a list are | ||
| matchable with one of these keys, changes to dicts in such a list will | ||
| return the two differing lists as a whole instead of only the differing | ||
| dict elements. | ||
| Empty by default, meaning lists of dicts will not be diffed deeply. | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggested adding example(s).
Also this isn't clear to me what this means:
dicts contained in a list are
matchable with one of these keys
How can a dict match (compare to) a single key?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi, for example
{"a": [{"name": "foo"}, {"name": "bar"}]}
can be matched on the key name. But
{"a": [{"name": "foo"}, {"type": "bar"}]}
can not.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
So far, lists would always be compared as a whole - in case of lists containing dicts as elements, this would cause lots of output even if only parts of the contained dicts changed. Allow matching of lists with consistently keyed dicts.
We do have listdiffer, but custom logic was implemented as importing listdiffer in dictdiffer would cause a circular import.
Let me know if you have a better idea for this.
What issues does this PR fix or reference?
Fixes
Previous Behavior
No way to diff dicts in lists in dicts.
New Behavior
Functionality is available.
Merge requirements satisfied?
[NOTICE] Bug fixes or features added to Salt require tests.
Commits signed with GPG?
Yes