sub-model cannot always re-write field infos from the same BaseModel.

[neverrop]

Checks

• [-] I added a descriptive title to this issue
• [-] I have searched (google, github) for similar issues and couldn't find anything
• [-] I have read and followed the docs and still think this is a bug

Bug

Output of python -c "import pydantic.utils; print(pydantic.utils.version_info())":

             pydantic version: 1.9.0
            pydantic compiled: True
                 install path: /home/zuobinhua/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pydantic
               python version: 3.7.6 (default, Jan  8 2020, 19:59:22)  [GCC 7.3.0]
                     platform: Linux-4.15.0-159-generic-x86_64-with-debian-buster-sid
     optional deps. installed: ['email-validator', 'typing-extensions']

When creating two sub models(A, B) from Pydantic BaseModel, with fields infos defined in Config. Then creating another two sub models(Model1, Model2) from A and B, trying to rewrite the extra keys (we used level in the following code) in field info. Only one of the sub models can re-write the extra value correctly.
As shown in the following code, extra in m2.fields["root"].field_info got level=3, but for m1 it still got level=1.

from typing import Optional
from pydantic import BaseModel
from pydantic import Field


class A(BaseModel):
    root: Optional[str]
    class Config:
        fields = {
            "root": {"description": "root path of data", "level": 1},
        }

class B(BaseModel):
    root: Optional[str]
    class Config:
        field = {
            "root": {"description": "root path of data", "level": 1},
        }

class Model1(A):
    root: str = Field("asa", description="image height", level=3)

class Model2(B):
    root: str = Field("asa", description="image height", level=3)

m1 = Model1()
print(m1.__fields__["root"].field_info)
# default='asa' description='image height' extra={'level': 1}

m2 = Model2()
print(m2.__fields__["root"].field_info)
# default='asa' description='image height' extra={'level': 3}

[PrettyWood]

You wrote Config.field for model B instead of Config.fields hence the difference.
Now you're right the output is not the expected one. I'll open a fix shortly

[neverrop]

You wrote Config.field for model B instead of Config.fields hence the difference.
Now you're right the output is not the expected one. I'll open a fix shortly

Sorry for the mistake Lol, and thanks for your reply!