## Summary
I tried to fix minor typos in the project
---------
Co-authored-by: Samuel Rigaud <rigaud@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: konstin <konstin@mailbox.org>
## 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.
We currently have two marker keys that a list, `extras` and
`dependency_groups`, both from PEP 751. With the variants PEP, we will
add three more. This change is broken out of the wheel variants PR to
introduce generic marker list support, plus a change to use
`ContainerOperator` in more places.
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
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.
N.B. After fixing #10430, `ArcStr` became the fastest implementation
(and the gains were significantly reduced, down to 1-2%). See:
https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/10453#issuecomment-2583344414.
## Summary
I tried out a variety of small string crates, but `Arc<str>`
outperformed them, giving a ~10% speed-up:
```console
❯ hyperfine "../arcstr lock" "../flexstr lock" "uv lock" "../arc lock" "../compact_str lock" --prepare "rm -f uv.lock" --min-runs 50 --warmup 20
Benchmark 1: ../arcstr lock
Time (mean ± σ): 304.6 ms ± 2.3 ms [User: 302.9 ms, System: 117.8 ms]
Range (min … max): 299.0 ms … 311.3 ms 50 runs
Benchmark 2: ../flexstr lock
Time (mean ± σ): 319.2 ms ± 1.7 ms [User: 317.7 ms, System: 118.2 ms]
Range (min … max): 316.8 ms … 323.3 ms 50 runs
Benchmark 3: uv lock
Time (mean ± σ): 330.6 ms ± 1.5 ms [User: 328.1 ms, System: 139.3 ms]
Range (min … max): 326.6 ms … 334.2 ms 50 runs
Benchmark 4: ../arc lock
Time (mean ± σ): 303.0 ms ± 1.2 ms [User: 301.6 ms, System: 118.4 ms]
Range (min … max): 300.3 ms … 305.3 ms 50 runs
Benchmark 5: ../compact_str lock
Time (mean ± σ): 320.4 ms ± 2.0 ms [User: 318.7 ms, System: 120.8 ms]
Range (min … max): 317.3 ms … 326.7 ms 50 runs
Summary
../arc lock ran
1.01 ± 0.01 times faster than ../arcstr lock
1.05 ± 0.01 times faster than ../flexstr lock
1.06 ± 0.01 times faster than ../compact_str lock
1.09 ± 0.01 times faster than uv lock
```
## Summary
A revival of an old idea (#9344) that I have slightly more confidence in
now. I abandoned this idea because (1) it couldn't capture that, e.g.,
`platform_system == 'Windows' and sys_platform == 'foo'` (or some other
unknown value) are disjoint, and (2) I thought that Android returned
`"android"` for one of `sys_platform` or `platform_system`, which
would've made this logic incorrect.
However, it looks like Android... doesn't do that? And the values here
are almost always in a small, known set. So in the end, the tradeoffs
here actually seem pretty good.
Vis-a-vis our current solution, this can (e.g.) _simplify out_
expressions like `sys_platform == 'win32' or platform_system ==
'Windows'`.
## Summary
This is an alternative to #9344. If accepted, I need to audit the
codebase and call sites to apply it everywhere, but the basic idea is:
rather than encoding mutually-incompatible pairs of markers in the
representation itself, we have an additional method on `MarkerTree` that
expands the false-y definition to take into account assumptions about
which markers can be true alongside others. We then check if the the
current marker implies that at least one of them is true.
So, for example, we know that `sys_platform == 'win32'` and
`platform_system == 'Darwin'` are mutually exclusive. When given a
marker expression like `python_version >= '3.7'`, we test if
`python_version >= '3.7'` and `sys_platform != 'win32' or
platform_system != 'Darwin'` are disjoint, i.e., if the following can't
be satisfied:
```
python_version >= '3.7' and (sys_platform != 'win32' or platform_system != 'Darwin')
```
Since, if this can't be satisfied, it implies that the left-hand
expression requires `sys_platform == 'win32'` and `platform_system ==
'Darwin'` to be true at the same time.
I think the main downsides here are:
1. We can't _simplify_ markers based on these implications. So we'd
still write markers like `sys_platform == 'win32' and platform_system !=
'Darwin'`, even though we know the latter expression is redundant.
2. It might be expensive? I'm not sure. I don't think we test for
falseness _that_ often though.
Closes#7760.
Closes#9275.
In the course of working on #9289, I've had to devise
some additions to our markers. While we are still staying
strictly compatible with the PEP 508 format, we will be
abusing the `extra` expression to carry a lot more
information.
Specifically, we want the following additional
operations:
* Simplify `extra != 'foo'`
* Remove all extra expressions
* Remove everything except extra expressions
My work on #9289 requires all of these (which will be
in a future in PR).
## 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.
## 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.
As per
https://matklad.github.io/2021/02/27/delete-cargo-integration-tests.html
Before that, there were 91 separate integration tests binary.
(As discussed on Discord — I've done the `uv` crate, there's still a few
more commits coming before this is mergeable, and I want to see how it
performs in CI and locally).
This commit fixes a bug where disjointness checking didn't always
satisfy commutativity. And it *should*. The `is_disjoint_commutative`
test added here demonstrates a regression test. Before this commit,
its second assertion failed.
That is, given `m1 = extra == "A" and extra != "B"` and
`m2 = extra == "A"`, we were saying that m1 was disjoint with
m2 (wrong) but that m2 was not disjoint with m1 (right).
It turned out that this was a "simple" matter of not using the
correct parent node when calling negation. Likely just a
transcription snafu.
This bug does not seem restricted in scope to extras, which is
how I found it, so it's not clear why we haven't noticed it until
now. I noticed it because I was formulating markers in a similar
format for resolver forking based on conflicting extras, and this
resulted in incorrectly filtering out dependencies due to `is_disjoint`
returning a false positive.
Samuel Rigaud
adamnemecek
konsti
Charlie Marsh
Mathieu Kniewallner
Andrew Gallant
Amos Wenger