Instead of saying
> we can conclude that you require==0a0.dev0 and
pandas-stubs==2.0.3.230814 are incompatible.
we'll say
> we can conclude that your requirements and pandas-stubs==2.0.3.230814
are incompatible.
Closes#3710
I'm not sure how to get unit test coverage for this, might look into
that. Ideally we'd skip this branch entirely?
I don't really understand why this only happens on windows clippy and
not on linux too, but as usual, boxing the error variant fixes it.
Fixup for #3585
Add minimal support for workspace discovery, only used for determining
paths in the bluejay commands.
We can now discover the workspace structure, namely that the
`pyproject.toml` of a package belongs to a workspace `pyproject.toml`
with members and exclusion. The globbing logic is inspired by cargo. We
don't resolve `workspace = true` metadata declarations yet.
Pubgrub stores incompatibilities as (package name, version range)
tuples, meaning it needs to clone the package name for each
incompatibility, and each non-borrowed operation on incompatibilities.
https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/3673 made me realize that
`PubGrubPackage` has gotten large (expensive to copy), so like `Version`
and other structs, i've added an `Arc` wrapper around it.
It's a pity clippy forbids `.deref()`, it's less opaque than `&**` and
has IDE support (clicking on `.deref()` jumps to the right impl).
## Benchmarks
It looks like this matters most for complex resolutions which, i assume
because they carry larger `PubGrubPackageInner::Package` and
`PubGrubPackageInner::Extra` types.
```bash
hyperfine --warmup 5 "./uv-main pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/jupyter.in" "./uv-branch pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/jupyter.in"
hyperfine --warmup 5 "./uv-main pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/airflow.in" "./uv-branch pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/airflow.in"
hyperfine --warmup 5 "./uv-main pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/boto3.in" "./uv-branch pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/boto3.in"
```
```
Benchmark 1: ./uv-main pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/jupyter.in
Time (mean ± σ): 18.2 ms ± 1.6 ms [User: 14.4 ms, System: 26.0 ms]
Range (min … max): 15.8 ms … 22.5 ms 181 runs
Benchmark 2: ./uv-branch pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/jupyter.in
Time (mean ± σ): 17.8 ms ± 1.4 ms [User: 14.4 ms, System: 25.3 ms]
Range (min … max): 15.4 ms … 23.1 ms 159 runs
Summary
./uv-branch pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/jupyter.in ran
1.02 ± 0.12 times faster than ./uv-main pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/jupyter.in
```
```
Benchmark 1: ./uv-main pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/airflow.in
Time (mean ± σ): 153.7 ms ± 3.5 ms [User: 165.2 ms, System: 157.6 ms]
Range (min … max): 150.4 ms … 163.0 ms 19 runs
Benchmark 2: ./uv-branch pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/airflow.in
Time (mean ± σ): 123.9 ms ± 4.6 ms [User: 152.4 ms, System: 133.8 ms]
Range (min … max): 118.4 ms … 138.1 ms 24 runs
Summary
./uv-branch pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/airflow.in ran
1.24 ± 0.05 times faster than ./uv-main pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/airflow.in
```
```
Benchmark 1: ./uv-main pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/boto3.in
Time (mean ± σ): 327.0 ms ± 3.8 ms [User: 344.5 ms, System: 71.6 ms]
Range (min … max): 322.7 ms … 334.6 ms 10 runs
Benchmark 2: ./uv-branch pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/boto3.in
Time (mean ± σ): 311.2 ms ± 3.1 ms [User: 339.3 ms, System: 63.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 307.8 ms … 317.0 ms 10 runs
Summary
./uv-branch pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/boto3.in ran
1.05 ± 0.02 times faster than ./uv-main pip compile -q ./scripts/requirements/boto3.in
```
<!--
Thank you for contributing to uv! To help us out with reviewing, please
consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
This is bare-bones support for editables in `uv sync` as basis for
workspace support, notably without lockfile integration. It leverages
the existing `ResolvedEditables` infrastructure.
## Summary
This PR falls back to writing an unnamed requirement if it appears to be
a relative URL. pip is way more flexible when providing an unnamed
requirement than when providing a PEP 508 requirement. For example,
_only_ this works:
```
black @ file:///Users/crmarsh/workspace/uv/scripts/packages/black_editable
```
Any other form will fail.
Meanwhile, _all_ of these work:
```
file:///Users/crmarsh/workspace/uv/scripts/packages/black_editable
scripts/packages/black_editable
./scripts/packages/black_editable
file:./scripts/packages/black_editable
file:scripts/packages/black_editable
```
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/3180.
Since we're adding a `Option<MarkerTree>` to `PubGrubPackage`, and since
we just make `PubGrubPackage` implement `Ord`, it follows that we want
`MarkerTree` to also implement `Ord`.
This makes use of the newly added `Ord` impl on `PubGrubPackage` to make
the output of `format_terms` independent of hashmap iteration order.
This was already collecting the terms into an intermediate `Vec`, so
sorting probably isn't going to add any significant overhead here.
(Plus, this is only running when formatting an error message after a
solution could not be found, so an extra sort doesn't seem like a big
deal here.)
Note that some tests are updated in this commit as a result of this
change. As far as I can tell, the semantic meaning of the output remains
the same. But the order of the listed packages does not.
Specific thing motivating this change is, in a subsequent, I added
`Option<MarkerTree>` to `PubGrubPackage::Package`, and this caused
similar changes in test output. So I backtracked and isolated this
change from the addition of `Option<MarkerTree>`.
It turns out that we use PubGrubPackage as the key in hashmaps in a fair
few places. And when we iterate over hashmaps, the order is unspecified.
This can in turn result in changes in output as a result of changes in
the PubGrubPackage definition, purely as a function of its changing
hash. This is confusing as there should be no semantic difference.
Thus, this is a precursor to introducing some more determinism to places
I found in the error reporting whose output depending on hashmap
iteration order.
It looks like the last vestiges of `Derivative` were removed in commit
7eaed07f6c, but the then rendered
superfluous `derive(Derivative)` wasn't removed.
This is split out from workspaces support, which needs editables in the
bluejay commands. It consists mainly of refactorings:
* Move the `editable` module one level up.
* Introduce a `BuiltEditableMetadata` type for `(LocalEditable,
Metadata23, Requirements)`.
* Add editables to `InstalledPackagesProvider` so we can use
`EmptyInstalledPackages` for them.
## Summary
If you have (e.g.) `extra-index-url` in your configuration file _and_
provide `--extra-index-url` on the command-line, we now merge the
options rather than ignoring those in the configuration file. As such,
merging the CLI and the persistent configuration is now semantically
identical to how we merge (project persistent configuration) with (user
persistent configuration).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/3541.
## Summary
The main motivation here is that the `.filename()` method that we
implement on `Url` will do URL decoding for the last segment, which we
were missing here.
The errors are a bit awkward, because in
`crates/uv-resolver/src/lock.rs`, we wrap in `failed to extract filename
from URL: {url}`, so in theory we want the underlying errors to _omit_
the URL? But sometimes they use `#[error(transparent)]`?
## Summary
Uncertain about this, but we don't actually need the full
`SourceDistFilename`, only the name and version -- and we often have
that information already (as in the lockfile routines). So by flattening
the fields onto `RegistrySourceDist`, we can avoid re-parsing for
information we already have.
Prompted by
https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/3657#discussion_r1606041239
There's still some level of discomfort here, as the `tool` module needs
needs to import the `project` module to manage an environment. We should
probably move most of the basic operations in the `project` module root
into some sort of shared module for behind the scenes operations?
Regardless, this change should simplify that future move.
## Summary
Restore API-compatibility with pre-1.1.0 versions of the `zip` crate,
and pin the dependency to the 0.6 series, due to concerns discussed in
https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/3642.
## Test Plan
```
cargo run -p uv-dev -- fetch-python
cargo test
```
## Summary
This PR adds lossless deserialization for `GitSourceDist` distributions
in the lockfile. Specifically, we now properly preserve the requested
revision, the subdirectory, and the precise Git commit SHA.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR introduces parallelism to the resolver. Specifically, we can
perform PubGrub resolution on a separate thread, while keeping all I/O
on the tokio thread. We already have the infrastructure set up for this
with the channel and `OnceMap`, which makes this change relatively
simple. The big change needed to make this possible is removing the
lifetimes on some of the types that need to be shared between the
resolver and pubgrub thread.
A related PR, https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/1163, found that
adding `yield_now` calls improved throughput. With optimal scheduling we
might be able to get away with everything on the same thread here.
However, in the ideal pipeline with perfect prefetching, the resolution
and prefetching can run completely in parallel without depending on one
another. While this would be very difficult to achieve, even with our
current prefetching pattern we see a consistent performance improvement
from parallelism.
This does also require reverting a few of the changes from
https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/3413, but not all of them. The
sharing is isolated to the resolver task.
## Test Plan
On smaller tasks performance is mixed with ~2% improvements/regressions
on both sides. However, on medium-large resolution tasks we see the
benefits of parallelism, with improvements anywhere from 10-50%.
```
./scripts/requirements/jupyter.in
Benchmark 1: ./target/profiling/baseline (resolve-warm)
Time (mean ± σ): 29.2 ms ± 1.8 ms [User: 20.3 ms, System: 29.8 ms]
Range (min … max): 26.4 ms … 36.0 ms 91 runs
Benchmark 2: ./target/profiling/parallel (resolve-warm)
Time (mean ± σ): 25.5 ms ± 1.0 ms [User: 19.5 ms, System: 25.5 ms]
Range (min … max): 23.6 ms … 27.8 ms 99 runs
Summary
./target/profiling/parallel (resolve-warm) ran
1.15 ± 0.08 times faster than ./target/profiling/baseline (resolve-warm)
```
```
./scripts/requirements/boto3.in
Benchmark 1: ./target/profiling/baseline (resolve-warm)
Time (mean ± σ): 487.1 ms ± 6.2 ms [User: 464.6 ms, System: 61.6 ms]
Range (min … max): 480.0 ms … 497.3 ms 10 runs
Benchmark 2: ./target/profiling/parallel (resolve-warm)
Time (mean ± σ): 430.8 ms ± 9.3 ms [User: 529.0 ms, System: 77.2 ms]
Range (min … max): 417.1 ms … 442.5 ms 10 runs
Summary
./target/profiling/parallel (resolve-warm) ran
1.13 ± 0.03 times faster than ./target/profiling/baseline (resolve-warm)
```
```
./scripts/requirements/airflow.in
Benchmark 1: ./target/profiling/baseline (resolve-warm)
Time (mean ± σ): 478.1 ms ± 18.8 ms [User: 482.6 ms, System: 205.0 ms]
Range (min … max): 454.7 ms … 508.9 ms 10 runs
Benchmark 2: ./target/profiling/parallel (resolve-warm)
Time (mean ± σ): 308.7 ms ± 11.7 ms [User: 428.5 ms, System: 209.5 ms]
Range (min … max): 287.8 ms … 323.1 ms 10 runs
Summary
./target/profiling/parallel (resolve-warm) ran
1.55 ± 0.08 times faster than ./target/profiling/baseline (resolve-warm)
```
## Summary
Fixes a small discrepancy between the pip compile outputs for
`annotation-style=split` and `annotation-style=line` commands.
### Problem
Consider the following `pyproject.toml` file.
```sh
$ cat pyproject.toml
[project]
name = "uv_test"
dynamic = ["version"]
dependencies = ["click"]
```
Running uv pip compile with annotation-style=split on uv 0.1.44 version
yields the following:
```sh
❯ uv pip compile pyproject.toml --annotation-style=split
Resolved 1 package in 2ms
# This file was autogenerated by uv via the following command:
# uv pip compile pyproject.toml --annotation-style=split
click==8.1.7
# via uv-test (pyproject.toml)
```
However, running uv pip compile with annotation-style=line doesn't
include source info for root level dependencies.
```sh
❯ uv pip compile pyproject.toml --annotation-style=line
Resolved 1 package in 1ms
# This file was autogenerated by uv via the following command:
# uv pip compile pyproject.toml --annotation-style=line
click==8.1.7
```
With this PR:
```sh
❯ ../target/debug/uv pip compile --annotation-style=line pyproject.toml
Resolved 1 package in 6ms
# This file was autogenerated by uv via the following command:
# uv pip compile --annotation-style=line pyproject.toml
click==8.1.7 # via uv-test (pyproject.toml)
```
This also now matches `pip-tools` output:
```sh
❯ pip-compile --annotation-style=line pyproject.toml
#
# This file is autogenerated by pip-compile with Python 3.12
# by the following command:
#
# pip-compile --annotation-style=line pyproject.toml
#
click==8.1.7 # via uv_test (pyproject.toml)
```
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
If a user includes markers after an editable, we now ignore them (rather
than including them in the parsed URL). This matches pip's behavior. In
the future, we could further improve by respecting them, but that
_would_ be a deviation from pip.
For example, given:
```
-e ./scripts/packages/black_editable ; python_version >= "3.9" and python_ver
```
We now split at the first whitespace (just before the `;`), parse
everything before, and throw out everything after.
This logic also extends to extras. So given:
```
-e ./scripts/packages/black_editable[dev, colorama]
```
We'll now parse this as the URL
`./scripts/packages/black_editable[dev,`, and throw out ` colorama]`.
Instead, you need to do:
```
-e ./scripts/packages/black_editable[dev,colorama]
```
(I.e., remove the space.)
This _also_ matches pip's behavior. I could "fix" this but I'm unsure if
I should -- it means requirements files will be parseable by uv that
won't work with pip. Open to input. My gut reaction is that we _should_
properly support `-e ./scripts/packages/black_editable[dev, colorama]`
even if pip would reject it, but `requirements.txt` is
implementation-defined so it'd be a "deviation".
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/3604.
Zanie Blue