Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 96.34703% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.60%. Comparing base (e089398) to head (c2e4242).
Report is 314 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #438      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.76%   92.60%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files          21       21              
  Lines        3567     3599      +32     
==========================================
+ Hits         3309     3333      +24     
- Misses        220      226       +6     
- Partials       38       40       +2     

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

@ross96D thanks for the PR. I was looking into this one last night and wanted to give a brief update. I think you correctly identified a problem with custom param validation. I'm not sure a second method to convert from []byte is the best approach, so I'm thinking about what would be best for this feature. I thought about a custom Validate method but it wouldn't be used for body validation as that happens before the inputs are parsed into the struct values. 🤔 ... We could just return a value via some method so it can be used for validation. I'll try to propose something for this soon.

Could we add docs for this?

I think this should now be handled in a fast way without additional memory allocations by https://github.com/danielgtaylor/huma/releases/tag/v2.29.0 param enhancements like the ParamWrapper interface to return the reflect.Value to set. Please let me know if that doesn't resolve things!