Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/4392
We shouldn't link to PyPI, and dropping the workspace-level
documentation link should mean that we get the auto-generated `docs.rs`
links.
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/16427
This PR updates `uv version --bump` so you can pin the exact number
you’re targeting, i.e. `--bump patch=10` or `--bump dev=42`. The
command-line interface now parses those `component=value` flags, and the
bump logic actually sets the version to the number you asked for.
## Summary
Make the use of `Self` consistent. Mostly done by running `cargo clippy
--fix -- -A clippy::all -W clippy::use_self`.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
No need.
Replaces https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/14092
Adds `tool.uv.extra-build-dependencies = {package = [dependency, ...]}`
which extends `build-system.requires` during package builds.
These are lowered via workspace sources, are applied to transitive
dependencies, and are included in the wheel cache shard hash.
There are some features we need to follow-up on, but are out of scope
here:
- Preferring locked versions for build dependencies
- Settings for requiring locked versions for build depencies
There are some quality of life follow-ups we should also do:
- Warn on `extra-build-dependencies` that do not apply to any packages
- Add test cases and improve error messaging when the
`extra-build-dependencies` resolve fails
-------
There ~are~ were a few open decisions to be made here
1. Should we resolve these dependencies alongside the
`build-system.requires` dependencies? Or should we resolve separately?
(I think the latter is more powerful? because you can override things?
but it opens the door to breaking your build)
2. Should we install these dependencies into the same environment? Or
should we layer it on top as we do elsewhere? (I think it's fine to
install into the same environment)
3. Should we respect sources defined in the parent project? (I think
yes, but then we need to lower the dependencies earlier — I don't think
that's a big deal, but it's not implemented)
4. Should we respect sources defined in the child project? (I think no,
this gets really complicated and seems weird to allow)
5. Should we apply this to transitive dependencies? (I think so)
---------
Co-authored-by: Aria Desires <aria.desires@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: konstin <konstin@mailbox.org>
## Summary
I noticed what appears to be a small typo in the documentation. In the
section describing dev versions, it says `sbpth table releases`. I
believe this was meant to be `both stable releases`, to match the
structure of the previous sentence about post versions.
This adds `alpha`, `beta`, `rc`, `stable`, `post`, and `dev` modes to
`uv version --bump`.
The components that `--bump` accepts are ordered as follows:
major > minor > patch > stable > alpha > beta > rc > post > dev
Bumping a component "clears" all lesser component (`alpha`, `beta`, and
`rc` all overwrite each other):
* `--bump minor` on `1.2.3a4.post5.dev6` => `1.3.0`
* `--bump alpha` on `1.2.3a4.post5.dev6` => `1.2.3a5`
* `--bump dev ` on `1.2.3a4.post5.dev6` => `1.2.3a4.post5.dev7`
In addition, `--bump` can now be repeated. The primary motivation of
this is "bump stable version and also enter a prerelease", but it
technically lets you express other things if you want them:
* `--bump patch --bump alpha` on `1.2.3` => `1.2.4a1` ("bump patch
version and go to alpha 1")
* `--bump minor --bump patch` on `1.2.3` => `1.3.1` ("bump minor version
and got to patch 1")
* `--bump minor --bump minor` on `1.2.3` => `1.4.0` ("bump minor version
twice")
The `--bump` flags are sorted by their priority, so that you don't need
to remember the priority yourself. This ordering is the only "useful"
one that preserves every `--bump` you passed, so there's no concern
about loss of expressiveness. For instance `--bump minor --bump major`
would just be `--bump major` if we didn't sort, as the major bump clears
the minor version. The ordering of `beta` after `alpha` means `--bump
alpha --bump beta` will just result in beta 1; this is the one case
where a bump request will effectively get overwritten.
The `stable` mode "bumps to the next stable release", clearing the pre
(`alpha`, `beta`, `rc`), `dev`, and `post` components from a version
(`1.2.3a4.post5.dev6` => `1.2.3`). The choice to clear `post` here is a
bit odd, in that `1.2.3.post4` => `1.2.3` is actually a version
decrease, but I think this gives a more intuitive model (as preserving
`post5` in the previous example is definitely wrong), and also
post-releases are extremely obscure so probably no one will notice. In
the cases where this behaviour isn't useful, you probably wanted to pass
`--bump patch` or something anyway which *should* definitely clear the
`post5` (putting it another way: the only cases where `--bump stable`
has dubious behaviour is when you wanted it to do a noop, which, is a
command you could have just not written at all).
In all cases we preserve the "epoch" and "local" components of a
version, so the `7!` and `+local` in `7!1.2.3+local` will never be
modified by `--bump` (you can use the raw version set mode if you want
to touch those). The preservation of `local` is another slightly odd
choice, but it's a really obscure feature (so again it mostly won't come
up) and when it's used it seems to mostly be used for referring to
variant releases, in which case preserving it tends to be correct.
Fixes#13223
---------
Co-authored-by: Zanie Blue <contact@zanie.dev>
The marker display code assumes that all versions are normalized, in
that all trailing zeroes are stripped. This is not the case for
tilde-equals and equals-star versions, where the trailing zeroes (before
the `.*`) are semantically relevant. This would cause path
dependent-behavior where we would get a different marker string
depending on whether a version with or without a trailing zero was added
to the cache first.
To handle both equals-star and tilde-equals when converting
`python_version` to `python_full_version` markers, we have to merge the
version normalization (i.e. trimming the trailing zeroes) and the
conversion both to `python_full_version` and to `Ranges`, while special
casing equals-star and tilde-equals.
To avoid churn in lockfiles, we only trim in the conversion to `Ranges`
for markers, but keep using untrimmed versions for requires-python.
(Note that this behavior is technically also path dependent, as versions
with and without trailing zeroes have the same Hash and Eq. E.q.,
`requires-python == ">= 3.10.0"` and `requires-python == ">= 3.10"` in
the same workspace could lead to either value in `uv.lock`, and which
one it is could change if we make unrelated (performance) changes.
Always trimming however definitely changes lockfiles, a churn I wouldn't
do outside another breaking or lockfile-changing change.) Nevertheless,
there is a change for users who have `requires-python = "~= 3.12.0"` in
their `pyproject.toml`, as this now hits the correct normalization path.
Fixes#14231Fixes#14270
Close#7426
## Summary
Picking up on #8284, I noticed that the `requires_python` object already
has its specifiers canonicalized in the `intersection` method, meaning
`~=3.12` is converted to `>=3.12, <4`. To fix this, we check and warn in
`intersection`.
## Test Plan
Used the same tests from #8284.
- Define all list elements using `-`: it used to be a mix of `*` and
`-`. `-` is what Prettier linter formats it to by default.
- Removed unnecessary blank line between 2 list elements. Other elements
were stitched together without blank lines in between.
- Only the first list element started in sentence case (capital letter
first) - I made all start like so.
## Summary
When missing an operator for version parsing, it would give an error
that was hard to know how to fix if you were not familiar with version
specifiers / PEP-440:
```
Unexpected end of version specifier, expected operator
```
Now, it will attempt to provide a more useful hint if it can parse the
version from the remaining scanner:
```
Unexpected end of version specifier, expected operator (did you mean "==3.12"?)
```
## Test Plan
Unit tests in `version_specifier.rs` were added/updated for the
following cases:
- `test_parse_specifier_missing_operator_error`
- `test_parse_specifier_missing_operator_invalid_version_error`
- `test_invalid_word`
- `test_invalid_specifier`
- `error_message_version_specifiers_parse_error`
A test in `edit.rs` for failing to parse the `pyproject.toml` when using
`add` was also included to match the request in the original issue:
- `add_invalid_requires_python`
I didn't add cases where no version specifier is provided because it
seemed like it doesn't get to the point of parsing in that case, so it
should not happen.
## Reference
Fixes#13126
---------
Co-authored-by: Jacob Woliver <jacob@jmw.sh>
Co-authored-by: konstin <konstin@mailbox.org>
Rustfmt introduces a lot of formatting changes in the 2024 edition. To
not break everything all at once, we split out the set of formatting
changes compatible with both the 2021 and 2024 edition by first
formatting with the 2024 style, and then again with the currently used
2021 style.
Notable changes are the formatting of derive macro attributes and lines
with overly long strings and adding trailing semicolons after statements
consistently.
From PEP 440:
> The exclusive ordered comparison <V MUST NOT allow a pre-release of
the specified version unless the specified version is itself a
pre-release. Allowing pre-releases that are earlier than, but not equal
to a specific pre-release may be accomplished by using <V.rc1 or
similar.
We had an additional check that would block this even if the specifier
did have a pre-release.
This likely didn't show up earlier because `Ranges` uses different code
in the resolver.
I checked these changes against `packaging` to verify their behavior:
```python
print(SpecifierSet("<1").contains("1a1", prereleases=True)) # False
print(SpecifierSet("<1a2").contains("1a1", prereleases=True)) # True
print(SpecifierSet("<1").contains("1dev1", prereleases=True)) # False
print(SpecifierSet("<1dev2").contains("1dev1", prereleases=True)) # True
print(SpecifierSet("<1a2").contains("1dev1", prereleases=True)) # True
```
Closes#12834
Three edition 2021 compatible sets of changes in preparation for the
edition 2025 split out from #11724.
In edition 2025, `gen` is a keyword, so we escape it as `r#gen`. `ref`
and `ref mut` are not allowed anymore for `&T` and `&mut T`, so we
remove them. `cargo fmt` now formats inside of macros, which the 2021
formatter doesn't undo.
## Summary
This is the pattern I see in a variety of crates, and I believe this is
preferred if you don't _need_ an owned `String`, since you can avoid the
allocation. This could be pretty impactful for us?
## Summary
We shouldn't consider incompatible distributions (e.g., those that don't
match the required Python version) when determining the implied markers.
This happened as a result of #10345 and #10362 being merged
independently. The latter used the old `Version::release` API, but the
former changed the `Version::release` API. This PR tweaks the new test
to use the new API (i.e., force a deref on the proxy type).
Basically, this explicitly checks that parsing a `1.2.0` into a
`Version` will roundtrip back to a `1.2.0`, and that parsing a `1.2`
will roundtrip back to a `1.2`.
I think this case is included in the other tests in this module, but
this test makes the behavior more clearly intentional I think.
Ref #10345
In a message like
```
❯ echo "numpy>2" | uv pip compile -p 3.8 -
× No solution found when resolving dependencies:
╰─▶ Because the requested Python version (>=3.8.0) does not satisfy Python>=3.10 and the requested
Python version (>=3.8.0) does not satisfy Python>=3.9,<3.10, we can conclude that Python>=3.9 is incompatible.
And because numpy>=2.0.1,<=2.0.2 depends on Python>=3.9 and only the following versions of numpy are available:
numpy<=2.0.2
```
I'm surprised that `-p 3.8` leads to expressions like `>=3.8.0` (I
understand it, of course, but it's not intuitive) and then all the
_other_ Python versions in the message omit the trailing zero. This
updates the `PythonRequirement` parsing to drop the trailing zeros. It's
easier to do there because the version is not yet abstracted.
## Summary
After #9524, I noticed two other dependencies were misaligned.
Since the previous PR has been merged, I was thinking I could submit
those two misses.
Of course, open to any comments/decline!
Thanks!! 🙂
## Test Plan
All units tests are still passing on my side. Let's see with the
pull-request CI again 😄
## 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
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.
konsti
Zanie Blue
Zsolt Dollenstein
Charlie Marsh
liam
samypr100
adamnemecek
Boseong Choi
Aria Desires
Aaron Ang
Yury Fedotov
Jacob Woliver
Andrew Gallant
Jp