🐛 Fix support for Annotated fields with Pydantic 2.12+

[stickM4N]

After pydantic update to support Python 3.14, different declaration syntax were affected by the changed.
I check and on pydantic side there is not changes on the resulting FieldInfo structure, at least at first glance.
In the tests I illustrated the 3 possible declaration syntax for annotations defined by pydantic and supported so far by sqlmodel. Two of them do not work any more with pydantic>=2.12!

[stickM4N]

solves #1602

[YuriiMotov]

Suggested change

	continue
	original_field = getattr(v, "_original_assignment", Undefined)
	# Get the original sqlmodel FieldInfo, pydantic >=v2.12 changes the model
	if isinstance(original_field, FieldInfo):
	field = original_field
	else:
	annotated_field = next(
	ann
	for c in new_cls.__mro__
	if (ann := get_annotations(c.__dict__).get(k)) # type: ignore[arg-type]
	)
	annotated_field_meta = getattr(
	annotated_field, "__metadata__", (())
	)
	field = next(
	(f for f in annotated_field_meta if isinstance(f, FieldInfo)),
	v,
	) # type: ignore[assignment]
	field.annotation = v.annotation
	# Guarantee the field has the correct type
	col = get_column_from_field(field)
	else:
	original_field = getattr(v, "_original_assignment", Undefined)
	if isinstance(original_field, FieldInfo):
	field = original_field
	else:
	field = find_field_info(new_cls, k, v)
	field.annotation = v.annotation
	col = get_column_from_field(field)
	setattr(new_cls, k, col)

I think this part will be clearer with if..else instead of continue and with some logic moved to a separate function:

def find_field_info(cls: type, field_name: str, fallback: FieldInfo) -> FieldInfo:
    for c in cls.__mro__:
        annotated = get_annotations(c.__dict__).get(field_name)  # type: ignore[arg-type]
        if annotated:
            for meta in getattr(annotated, "__metadata__", ()):
                if isinstance(meta, FieldInfo):
                    return meta
    return fallback

[stickM4N]

Yes, it's easier to read, I will apply it

[stickM4N]

Just upload a change simplifying the logic based on your suggestion, maybe this way is more straight-forward