In *some* places in our crates, `serde` (and `rkyv`) are optional
dependencies. I believe this was done out of reasons of "good sense,"
that is, it follows a Rust ecosystem pattern where serde integration
tends to be an opt-in crate feature. (And similarly for `rkyv`.)
However, ultimately, `uv` itself requires `serde` and `rkyv` to
function. Since our crates are strictly internal, there are limited
consumers for our crates without `serde` (and `rkyv`) enabled. I think
one possibility is that optional `serde` (and `rkyv`) integration means
that someone can do this:
cargo test -p pep440_rs
And this will run tests _without_ `serde` or `rkyv` enabled. That in
turn could lead to faster iteration time by reducing compile times. But,
I'm not sure this is worth supporting. The iterative compilation times
of
individual crates are probably fast enough in debug mode, even with
`serde` and `rkyv` enabled. Namely, `serde` and `rkyv` themselves
shouldn't need to be re-compiled in most cases. On `main`:
```
from-scratch: `cargo test -p pep440_rs --lib` 0.685
incremental: `cargo test -p pep440_rs --lib` 0.278s
from-scratch: `cargo test -p pep440_rs --features serde,rkyv --lib` 3.948s
incremental: `cargo test -p pep440_rs --features serde,rkyv --lib` 0.321s
```
So while a from-scratch build does take significantly longer, an
incremental build is about the same.
The benefit of doing this change is two-fold:
1. It brings out crates into alignment with "reality." In particular,
some crates were _implicitly_ relying on `serde` being enabled
without explicitly declaring it. This technically means that our
`Cargo.toml`s were wrong in some cases, but it is hard to observe it
because of feature unification in a Cargo workspace.
2. We no longer need to deal with the cognitive burden of writing
`#[cfg_attr(feature = "serde", ...)]` everywhere.
## Summary
This index strategy resolves every package to the latest possible
version across indexes. If a version is in multiple indexes, the first
available index is selected.
Implements #3137
This closely matches pip.
## Test Plan
Good question. I'm hesitant to use my certifi example here, since that
would inevitably break when torch removes this package. Please comment!
## Summary
based on PEP 508 the `platform_machine` should be same as
`platform.machine()` output:
https://peps.python.org/pep-0508/#environment-markers
From my macOS M2
```python
In [1]: import platform
In [2]: platform.machine()
Out[2]: 'arm64'
```
I napari we also use `arm64` in requirements and it works as expected:
9fcf63e69a/pyproject.toml (L120)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
I initially implemented this by allowing arbitrary
`x86_64-manylinux_x_y`, but it makes the Clap, Serde, and Schemars
definitions more complicated, _and_ makes it harder for the user.
Ultimately, manylinux itself only provides images for 2_17 and 2_28, so
this seems like it should be sufficient.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/3222.
## Summary
macOS 11 has been EOL for 7 months, and it seems like it's common to
publish ARM-only wheels at 12.0+. I think this is a better default for
ARM macs.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/3227.
## Test Plan
`cargo run pip install scikit-learn==1.3.2 --python-platform macos
--no-build`
Adds hidden `--preview` / `--no-preview` flags with `UV_PREVIEW`
environment variable support. Copies the `PreviewMode` type from Ruff.
Does a little bit of extra work to port `uv run` to the new settings
model.
Note we allow `uv run` invocations without preview and only use its
presence to toggle an experimental warning.
## Test plan
```
❯ cargo run -q -- run --no-workspace -- python --version
warning: `uv run` is experimental and may change without warning.
Python 3.12.2
❯ cargo run -q -- run --no-workspace --preview -- python --version
Python 3.12.2
❯ UV_PREVIEW=1 cargo run -q -- run --no-workspace -- python --version
Python 3.12.2
```
## Summary
This PR adds basic struct definitions along with a "workspace" concept
for discovering settings. (The "workspace" terminology is used to match
Ruff; I did not invent it.)
A few notes:
- We discover any `pyproject.toml` or `uv.toml` file in any parent
directory of the current working directory. (We could adjust this to
look at the directories of the input files.)
- We don't actually do anything with the configuration yet; but those
PRs are large and I want this to be reviewed in isolation.
When running the `uv-client` tests, i would previously get:
```
warning: field `0` is never read
--> crates/uv-configuration/src/config_settings.rs:43:27
|
43 | pub struct ConfigSettings(BTreeMap<String, ConfigSettingValue>);
| -------------- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| field in this struct
|
= note: `ConfigSettings` has derived impls for the traits `Clone` and `Debug`, but these are intentionally ignored during dead code analysis
= note: `#[warn(dead_code)]` on by default
help: consider changing the field to be of unit type to suppress this warning while preserving the field numbering, or remove the field
|
43 | pub struct ConfigSettings(());
| ~~
warning: `uv-configuration` (lib) generated 1 warning
```
Needed to prevent circular dependencies in my toolchain work (#2931). I
think this is probably a reasonable change as we move towards persistent
configuration too?
Unfortunately `BuildIsolation` needs to be in `uv-types` to avoid
circular dependencies still. We might be able to resolve that in the
future.
