## Summary
Historically, in order to "resolve from a lockfile", we've taken the
lockfile, used it to pre-populate the in-memory metadata index, then run
a resolution. If the resolution didn't match our existing resolution, we
re-resolved from scratch.
This was an appealing approach because (in theory) it didn't require any
dedicated logic beyond pre-populating the index. However, it's proven to
be _really_ hard to get right, because it's a stricter requirement than
we need. We just need the current lockfile to _satisfy_ the requirements
provided by the user. We don't actually need a second resolution to
produce the exact same result. And it's not uncommon that this second
resolution differs, because we seed it with preferences, which
fundamentally changes its course. We've worked hard to minimize those
"instabilities", but they're still present.
The approach here is intended to be much simpler. Instead of resolving
from the lockfile, we just check if the current resolution satisfies the
state of the workspace. Specifically, we check if the lockfile (1)
contains all the relevant members, and (2) matches the metadata for all
dependencies, recursively. (We skip registry dependencies, assuming that
they're immutable.)
This may actually be too conservative, since we can have resolutions
that satisfy the requirements, even if the requirements have changed
slightly. But we want to bias towards correctness for now.
My hope is that this scheme will be more performant, simpler, and more
robust.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/6063.
## Summary
This was added in https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/5405 but is now
the cause of an instability in `github_wikidata_bot`. Specifically, on
the initial run, we fork in `pydantic==2.8.2`, via:
```
Requires-Dist: typing-extensions>=4.12.2; python_version >= '3.13'
Requires-Dist: typing-extensions>=4.6.1; python_version < '3.13'
```
In the end, we resolve a single version of `typing-extensions`
(`4.12.2`)... But we don't recognize the two resolutions as the "same
graph", because we propagate the fork markers, and so the "edges" have
different markers on them...
In the second run through, when we have the forks in advance, we don't
split on Pydantic... We just try to solve from the root with the current
forks. This is fundamentally different and I fear it will be the cause
of many instabilities. But removing this graph check fixes the proximate
issue.
I don't really understand why this was added since there was no test
coverage in the PR.
## Summary
When constructing the `Resolution`, we only propagated the fork markers
to the package node, but not the extras node. This led to cases in which
an extra could be included unconditionally or otherwise diverge from the
base package version.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/6062.
## Summary
Right now, we store the environment markers in a `BTreeSet` -- so
they're sorted, but the sort doesn't really tell us anything. I think we
should instead store them in the order in which we solved. I thought
this might fix an instability (it didn't), but I think it's still good
to ensure we solve in the same order.
I also changed from `Option<Vec>` to just `Vec`, since there was no
distinction between `None` and empty.
## Summary
We retain them if you use `--raw-sources`, but otherwise they're
removed. We still respect them in the subsequent `uv.lock` via an
in-process store.
Closes#6056.
## Summary
Now, if you resolve against a registry, then swap it out for another, we
won't reuse the lockfile. (If you don't provide any registry
configuration, then we won't enforce this, so that `uv lock --index-url
foo` and `uv lock` is stable.)
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/5920.
This example came up in discussion and it was initially unclear whether
we should try to support it. Specifically, by automatically assuming
that the `datasets < 2.19` dependency had a marker corresponding to the
negation of the conjunction of the other sibling markers for that same
package. But this was deemed, I think, a little too magical.
This in turn implies that whenever there are sibling dependencies with
overlapping marker expressions, their version constraints also need to
be overlapping. Otherwise, for any marker environment that matches both
marker expressions, it would be impossible to select a single version.
The test in this case has this comment:
```
/// If a dependency requests a prerelease version with an overlapping marker expression,
/// we should prefer the prerelease version in both forks.
```
With this setup:
```
let pyproject_toml = context.temp_dir.child("pyproject.toml");
pyproject_toml.write_str(indoc! {r#"
[project]
name = "example"
version = "0.0.0"
dependencies = [
"cffi >= 1.17.0rc1 ; os_name == 'Linux'"
]
requires-python = ">=3.11"
"#})?;
let requirements_in = context.temp_dir.child("requirements.in");
requirements_in.write_str(indoc! {"
cffi
.
"})?;
```
The change in this commit _seems_ more correct that what we had,
although it does seem to contradict the comment. Namely, in the `os_name
!= "Linux"` fork, we don't prefer the pre-release version since the
`cffi >= 1.17.0rc1` bound doesn't apply.
It's not quite clear what to do in this instance.
I believe these are all changes that aren't necessarily
expected, but also seem harmless. Like the order in which
fork markers are written to the lock file. (Although one
wonders if we should fix that once and for all by defining
a complete sort function for forks.)
At a high level, this PR adds a smattering of new tests that
effectively snapshot the output of `uv lock` for a selection of
"ecosystem" projects. That is, real Python projects for which we expect
`uv` to work well with.
The main idea with these tests is to get a better idea of how changes
in `uv` impact the lock files of real world projects. For example,
we're hoping that these tests will help give us data for how #5733
differs from #5887.
This has already revealed some bugs. Namely, re-running `uv lock` for a
second time will produce a different lock file for some projects. So to
prioritize getting the tests added, for those projects, we don't do the
deterministic checking.
## Summary
Our current handling of `--find-links` merges the entries in each index.
As a result, we can end up with `AnnotatedDist` entries that reference
distributions across indexes.
I'd like to change `--find-links` such that each `--find-links` entry is
just treated as its own index (so, e.g., if `requests` exists in the
first `--find-links` entry, we don't even check the registry by
default), which would _also_ fix this problem automatically. But that's
a behavior change... So for now, in the lockfile, we filter
distributions that don't match the source index URL.
There are two cases to consider:
- There's a source distribution. Then, for the ID to reference the
`--find-links` registry, the source distribution _must_ have come from
the `--find-links` entry, so it's fine to discard any wheels from the
"wrong" registry without breaking any compatibility guarantees.
- There's no source distribution. Then the best wheel must come from the
`--find-links` registry. We might lose some platform coverage by
discarding the other wheels, but it shouldn't break any of the
"guarantees", since we have at least one wheel that fits in the version
range.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/6015.
## Summary
Added the actual error message to the warning when uv fails to parse
`pyproject.toml`.
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/5934
## Test Plan
Took the case from the issue:
- have `pyproject.toml` which contains
```
[tool.uv]
foobar = false
```
-
```
$ uv venv --preview -v
```
- Expect the message that contains the actual problem in the
`pyproject.toml` like:
```
warning: Failed to parse `pyproject.toml` during settings discovery: unknown field `foobar`; skipping...
```
