This came up when trying to improve the build error reporting.
Introduces `DistErrorKind` to avoid error variants for each case that
are only different in one line of the message.
In https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/8155#issuecomment-2508969900,
resolution lowest was complaining about missing lower bounds for a
pacakge, even though the package had a URL, too:
```
uv pip install dist/pymatgen-2024.10.3.tar.gz pymatgen[ci,optional] --resolution=lowest
```
The error was raised from `pymatgen[ci,optional]`, because we were
looking at it before looking at the "URL"
`dist/pymatgen-2024.10.3.tar.gz`.
I've also added constraints and overrides to the bounds lookup, since
they are missing from the dependency graph.
Fixes#8155 (again)
When encountering `dynamic = ["version"]` in the pyproject.toml of a
source dist, we can ignore that and treat it as a statically known
metadata distribution, since the filename tells us the version and that
version must not change on build.
This fixed locking PyGObject 3.50.0 from `pygobject-3.50.0.tar.gz`
(minimized):
```toml
[project]
name = "PyGObject"
description = "Python bindings for GObject Introspection"
requires-python = ">=3.9, <4.0"
dependencies = [
"pycairo>=1.16"
]
dynamic = ["version"]
```
Afterwards, `uv add --no-sync toga` passes on Ubuntu 24.04 without the
pygobject build deps, when previously it needed `{ name = "pygobject",
version = "3.50.0", requires-dist = [], requires-python = ">=3.9" }`.
I've added a check that source distribution versions are respected after
build.
Fixes#9548
## Summary
Today, our dependency group implementation is a little awkward... For
each package `P`, we check if `P` contains dependencies for each enabled
group, then add a dependency on `P` with the group enabled. There are a
few issues here:
1. It's sort of backwards... We add a dependency from the base package
`P` to `P` with the group enabled. Then `P` with the group enabled adds
a dependency on the base package.
2. We can't, e.g., enable different groups for different packages. (We
don't have a way for users to specify this on the CLI, but there's no
reason that it should be _impossible_ in the resolver.)
3. It's inconsistent with how extras work, which leads to confusing
differences in the resolver.
Instead, our internal requirement type can now include dependency
groups, which makes dependency groups look much, much more like extras
in the resolver.
## Summary
Discovered while working on https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/9516.
In the linked repo, the root uses a `../dependency` path for the
workspace member, which we weren't normalizing.
This _partially_ unwinds the optimization in #9540 by adding back the
base package dependency as a sibling to the extra package dependency
in some cases. Specifically, this occurs when _any_ of the extras are
declared as conflicting.
This is believed to be necessary (until another method is found) to
handle the forking logic based on conflicts. Namely, the forking logic
depends on the base and extra packages being sibling dependencies. If
only the extra is present, then it won't be included in the fork that
excludes all conflicting extras. And that means the base package won't
either, even though it should be included in that fork in some cases. If
the base package dependency is deferred, then it will never be reached.
This also adds another test and updates the snapshots that would have
caught the regression in #9540 if the conflict tests had been enabled.
## Summary
Previously, when we encountered `foo[bar]`, we'd add a dependency on
`PubGrubPackage::Package` for `foo`, and then `PubGrubPackage::Extra`
for `foo[bar]`.
Later, when we ask for the dependencies of the `PubGrubPackage::Extra`,
we add `PubGrubPackage::Package` for `foo`, and
`PubGrubPackage::Package` for `foo[bar]`. This is an intentional
strategy because it ensures that PubGrub "knows" that these have to be
solved to the same version as early as possible.
It turns out that the first part here ("add a dependency on
`PubGrubPackage::Package` for `foo`") is suboptimal, because it means
PubGrub might try to solve _just_ `foo` without realizing that it also
has to accommodate all the constraints from the extra.
Instead, we now add _just_ `PubGrubPackage::Extra` for `foo[bar]`, and
defer adding the base package. It looks like this leads to a far more
efficient solve for Airflow.
## Summary
When we serialize and deserialize the lockfile, we remove the conflict
markers. So in the linked case, the edges for the `tqdm` entries are
like:
```
complexified_marker: UniversalMarker {
pep508_marker: python_full_version >= '3.9.0',
conflict_marker: true,
},
```
However... when we evaluate in-memory, the conflict markers are still
there...
```
complexified_marker: UniversalMarker {
pep508_marker: true,
conflict_marker: extra == 't1' and extra != 't2',
},
```
So if `uv run` creates the lockfile, we evaluate this as `false`.
We should make this consistent, and I expect @BurntSushi is aware. But
for now, it's reasonable / correct to pass the extra when evaluating at
this specific point, since we know the dependency was enabled by the
marker.
Closes
https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/9533#issuecomment-2508908591.
## Summary
A lot of good new lints, and most importantly, error stabilizations. I
tried to find a few usages of the new stabilizations, but I'm sure there
are more.
IIUC, this _does_ require bumping our MSRV.
## Summary
We never construct these -- they should be impossible, since we always
translate to `python_full_version`. This PR encodes that impossibility
in the types.
## Summary
I want to move towards a more normalized marker representation within
the marker tree, which means that the things we warn against will
disappear by the time we get to evaluation. I think it makes more sense
to show these warnings when we create the tree, rather than when we
evaluate it.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to uv! To help us review effectively, please
ensure that:
- The pull request includes a summary of the change.
- The title is descriptive and concise.
- Relevant issues are referenced where applicable.
-->
## Summary
Resolves#9333
This pull request introduces support for the `--no-extra` command-line
flag and the corresponding `no-extra` UV setting.
### Behavior
- When `--all-extras` is supplied, the specified extras in `--no-extra`
will be excluded from the installation.
- If `--all-extras` is not supplied, `--no-extra` has no effect and is
safely ignored.
## Test Plan
Since `ExtrasSpecification::from_args` and
`ExtrasSpecification::extra_names` are the most important parts in the
implementation, I added the following tests in the
`uv-configuration/src/extras.rs` module:
- **`test_no_extra_full`**: Verifies behavior when `no_extra` includes
the entire list of extras.
- **`test_no_extra_partial`**: Tests partial exclusion, ensuring only
specified extras are excluded.
- **`test_no_extra_empty`**: Confirms that no extras are excluded if
`no_extra` is empty.
- **`test_no_extra_excessive`**: Ensures the implementation ignores
`no_extra` values that don't match any available extras.
- **`test_no_extra_without_all_extras`**: Validates that `no_extra` has
no effect when `--all-extras` is not supplied.
- **`test_no_extra_without_package_extras`**: Confirms correct behavior
when no extras are available in the package.
- **`test_no_extra_duplicates`**: Verifies that duplicate entries in
`pkg_extras` or `no_extra` do not cause errors.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
This adds a `--prune` flag to the `export` command to correspond with
the `--prune` flag of the `tree` command.
The purpose is for generating a `requirements.txt` that omits a package
and all of that package's unique dependencies. This is useful for cases
where the project has a dependency on a common core package, but where
that package does not need to be installed in the target environment.
For example, a pyspark job needs spark for development, but when
installing into a cluster that already has pyspark installed, it is
desirable to omit pyspark's whole dependency tree so that only the
unique dependencies that your job needs get installed, and do not risk
breaking the pyspark dependencies with something incompatible.
Dev groups cannot always cover this case because there are other
projects where this common dependency occurs as a transitive. One
example is Airflow providers, which include Airflow itself as a
dependency, but it is unnecessary and undesirable to include Airflow's
dependency tree in the `requirements.txt` for your DAGs.
Partly related to #7214, though I'm not sure it covers the ask in that
one of having this functionality extend to the project's actual
published metadata.
## Test Plan
An integration test was added, and some manual testing. Let me know if
more would be better.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
When we generate conflict markers for each resolution after the
resolver runs, it turns out that generating them just from exclusion
rules is not sufficient.
For example, if `foo` and `bar` are declared as conflicting extras, then
we end up with the following forks:
A: extra != 'foo'
B: extra != 'bar'
C: extra != 'foo' and extra != 'bar'
Now let's take an example where these forks don't share the same version
for all packages. Consider a case where `idna==3.9` is in forks A and C,
but where `idna==3.10` is in fork B. If we combine the markers in forks
A and C through disjunction, we get the following:
idna==3.9: extra != 'foo' or (extra != 'foo' and extra != 'bar')
idna==3.10: extra != 'bar'
Which simplifies to:
idna==3.9: extra != 'foo'
idna==3.10: extra != 'bar'
But these are clearly not disjoint. Both dependencies could be selected,
for example, when neither `foo` nor `bar` are active. We can remedy this
by keeping around the inclusion rules for each fork:
A: extra != 'foo' and extra == 'bar'
B: extra != 'bar' and extra == 'foo'
C: extra != 'foo' and extra != 'bar'
And so for `idna`, we have:
idna==3.9: (extra != 'foo' and extra == 'bar') or (extra != 'foo' and extra != 'bar')
idna==3.10: extra != 'bar' and extra == 'foo'
Which simplifies to:
idna==3.9: extra != 'foo'
idna==3.10: extra != 'bar' and extra == 'foo'
And these *are* properly disjoint. There is no way for them both to be
active. This also correctly accounts for fork C where neither `foo` nor
`bar` are active, and yet, `idna==3.9` is still enabled but `idna==3.10`
is not. (In the [motivating example], this comes from `baz` being enabled.)
That is, this captures the idea that for `idna==3.10` to be installed,
there must actually be a specific extra that is enabled. That's what
makes it disjoint from `idna==3.9`.
We aren't quite done yet, because this does add *too many* conflict
markers to dependency edges that don't need it. In the next commit,
we'll add in our world knowledge to simplify these conflict markers.
[motivating example]: https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/9289
Previously, we had copied the behavior of `try_markers` to return
`None` in the case where the marker was always true. I believe this
was done because it somewhat implies that there is no forking
happening. But I find this somewhat strange personally, and instead
flipped this around so that it still returns a marker in that case.
The one call site that is impacted by this is the resolution
graph construction. If we left it as-is, it would end up with
a list of one marker that is always true in some cases. And this
in turn results in writing an empty `resolution-markers` to the
lock file. Probably the output logic should be tweaked instead,
but we leave it alone for now.
This effectively combines a PEP 508 marker and an as-yet-specified
marker for expressing conflicts among extras and groups.
This just defines the type and threads it through most of the various
points in the code that previously used `MarkerTree` only. Some parts
do still continue to use `MarkerTree` specifically, e.g., when dealing
with non-universal resolution or exporting to `requirements.txt`.
This doesn't change any behavior.
This doesn't change any behavior. My guess is that this code was
a casualty of refactoring. But basically, it was doing redundant
case analysis and iterating over all resolutions (even though it's
in the branch that can only occur when there is only one
resolution).
This filtering is now redundant, since forking now avoids these
degenerate cases by construction.
The main change to forking that enables skipping over "always
false" forks is that forking now starts with the parent's markers
instead of starting with MarkerTree::TRUE and trying to combine
them with the parent's markers later. This in turn leads to
skipping over anything that "can't" happen when combined with the
parents markers. So we never hit the case of generating a fork
that, when combined with the parent's markers, results in a
marker that is always false. We just avoid it in the first place.
## Summary
The issue here is fairly complex. Consider the following:
```toml
[project]
name = "project"
version = "0.1.0"
requires-python = ">=3.12.0"
dependencies = []
[project.optional-dependencies]
cpu = [
"torch>=2.5.1",
"torchvision>=0.20.1",
]
cu124 = [
"torch>=2.5.1",
"torchvision>=0.20.1",
]
[tool.uv]
conflicts = [
[
{ extra = "cpu" },
{ extra = "cu124" },
],
]
[tool.uv.sources]
torch = [
{ index = "pytorch-cpu", extra = "cpu", marker = "platform_system != 'Darwin'" },
]
torchvision = [
{ index = "pytorch-cpu", extra = "cpu", marker = "platform_system != 'Darwin'" },
]
[[tool.uv.index]]
name = "pytorch-cpu"
url = "https://download.pytorch.org/whl/cpu"
explicit = true
```
When solving this project, we first pick a PyTorch version from PyPI, to
solve the `cu124` extra, selecting `2.5.1`.
Later, we try to solve the `cpu` extra. In solving that extra, we look
at the PyTorch CPU index. Ideally, we'd select `2.5.1+cpu`... But
`2.5.1` is already a preference. So we choose that.
Now, we only respect preferences for explicit indexes if they came from
the same index.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/9295.
## Summary
The reqwest middleware doesn't retry errors that occur "after" the
request completes -- but in some cases, these do include spurious errors
that we want to retry. See https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/8144
for examples. This PR adds a second retry layer during the response
_handler_, which should help with some of the spurious failures we see
in the linked issue.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/8144.
## Summary
This PR enables something like the "final boss" of PyTorch setups --
explicit support for CPU vs. GPU-enabled variants via extras:
```toml
[project]
name = "project"
version = "0.1.0"
requires-python = ">=3.13.0"
dependencies = []
[project.optional-dependencies]
cpu = [
"torch==2.5.1+cpu",
]
gpu = [
"torch==2.5.1",
]
[tool.uv.sources]
torch = [
{ index = "torch-cpu", extra = "cpu" },
{ index = "torch-gpu", extra = "gpu" },
]
[[tool.uv.index]]
name = "torch-cpu"
url = "https://download.pytorch.org/whl/cpu"
explicit = true
[[tool.uv.index]]
name = "torch-gpu"
url = "https://download.pytorch.org/whl/cu124"
explicit = true
[tool.uv]
conflicts = [
[
{ extra = "cpu" },
{ extra = "gpu" },
],
]
```
It builds atop the conflicting extras work to allow sources to be marked
as specific to a dedicated extra being enabled or disabled.
As part of this work, sources now have an `extra` field. If a source has
an `extra`, it means that the source is only applied to the requirement
when defined within that optional group. For example, `{ index =
"torch-cpu", extra = "cpu" }` above only applies to
`"torch==2.5.1+cpu"`.
The `extra` field does _not_ mean that the source is "enabled" when the
extra is activated. For example, this wouldn't work:
```toml
[project]
name = "project"
version = "0.1.0"
requires-python = ">=3.13.0"
dependencies = ["torch"]
[tool.uv.sources]
torch = [
{ index = "torch-cpu", extra = "cpu" },
{ index = "torch-gpu", extra = "gpu" },
]
[[tool.uv.index]]
name = "torch-cpu"
url = "https://download.pytorch.org/whl/cpu"
explicit = true
[[tool.uv.index]]
name = "torch-gpu"
url = "https://download.pytorch.org/whl/cu124"
explicit = true
```
In this case, the sources would effectively be ignored. Extras are
really confusing... but I think this is correct? We don't want enabling
or disabling extras to affect resolution information that's _outside_ of
the relevant optional group.
## Summary
These were moved as part of a broader refactor to create a single
integration test module. That "single integration test module" did
indeed have a big impact on compile times, which is great! But we aren't
seeing any benefit from moving these tests into their own files (despite
the claim in [this blog
post](https://matklad.github.io/2021/02/27/delete-cargo-integration-tests.html),
I see the same compilation pattern regardless of where the tests are
located). Plus, we don't have many of these, and same-file tests is such
a strong Rust convention.
