Review for Source Package: pydantic

[Summary]
MIR team ACK under the constraint to resolve the below listed
required TODOs and as much as possible having a look at the
recommended TODOs.
This does need a security review. I'll assign ubuntu-security after required TODO's are addressed.
List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: python3-pydantic

Notes:
Required TODOs:
1. There not seem be any autopkg tests running. The package does have a test suite, so this
   could be used in autopkgtest
2. The version in debian/ubuntu is 1.10.4 but the upstream latest version is 2.0.2.
   Please bump to latest version.
3. The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted

[Duplication]
There is no other package in main providing the same functionality.
The package is required in main as a dependency or jarco.txt which is in main.

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
  - pydantic checked with `check-mir`
  - all dependencies can be found in `seeded-in-ubuntu` (already in main)
  - none of the (potentially auto-generated) dependencies (Depends
    and Recommends) that are present after build are not in main
- no -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion
- No dependencies in main that are only superficially tested requiring
  more tests now.

Problems: None

[Embedded sources and static linking]
OK:
- no embedded source present
- no static linking
- does not have unexpected Built-Using entries
- not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
- not a rust package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
- Does not include vendored code

Problems: None

[Security]
OK:
- history of CVEs does not look concerning
- does not run a daemon as root
- does not use webkit1,2
- does not use lib*v8 directly
- does not open a port/socket
- does not process arbitrary web content
- does not use centralized online accounts
- does not integrate arbitrary javascript into the desktop
- does not deal with system authentication (eg, pam), etc)
- does not deal with security attestation (secure boot, tpm, signatures)
- does not deal with cryptography (en-/decryption, certificates, signing, ...)

Problems:
- does parse data formats (files [images, video, audio,
  xml, json, asn.1], network packets, structures, ...) from
  an untrusted source.

[Common blockers]
OK:
- does not FTBFS currently
- does have a test suite that runs at build time
  - test suite fails will fail the build upon error.
- This does not need special HW for build or test
- no new python2 dependency
- Python package, but using dh_python

Problems: None
- does not have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest

[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does not carry a delta
- symbols tracking not applicable for this kind of code.
- debian/watch is present and looks ok (if needed, e.g. non-native)
- Upstream update history is good
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is slow
- promoting this does not seem to cause issues for MOTUs that so far
  maintained the package
- no massive Lintian warnings
- debian/rules is rather clean
- It is not on the lto-disabled list

Problems: None
- the current release is not packaged

[Upstream red flags]
OK:
- no Errors/warnings during the build
- no incautious use of malloc/sprintf (the language has no direct MM)
- no use of sudo, gksu, pkexec, or LD_LIBRARY_PATH (usage is OK inside
  tests)
- no use of user nobody
- no use of setuid
- no important open bugs (crashers, etc) in Debian or Ubuntu
- no dependency on webkit, qtwebkit, seed or libgoa-*
- not part of the UI for extra checks
- no translation present, but none needed for this case (user visible)?

Problems: None