Leverage uv

[jakob-keller]

Description of Change

Leverage uv for local development environment and CI/CD pipeline.

Assumptions

Replace this text with any assumptions made (if any)

Checklist for All Submissions

• I have added change info to CHANGES.rst
• If this is resolving an issue (needed so future developers can determine if change is still necessary and under what conditions) (can be provided via link to issue with these details): closes Use best practice dependency management #1188
  • Detailed description of issue
  • Alternative methods considered (if any)
  • How issue is being resolved
  • How issue can be reproduced
• If this is providing a new feature (can be provided via link to issue with these details):
  • Detailed description of new feature
  • Why needed
  • Alternatives methods considered (if any)

Checklist when updating botocore and/or aiohttp versions

• I have read and followed CONTRIBUTING.rst
• I have updated test_patches.py where/if appropriate (also check if no changes necessary)
• I have ensured that the awscli/boto3 versions match the updated botocore version

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.88%. Comparing base (7432338) to head (54ce93e).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1257      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.05%   87.88%   -0.17%     
==========================================
  Files          67       67              
  Lines        5904     5904              
==========================================
- Hits         5199     5189      -10     
- Misses        705      715      +10     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	87.88% <ø> (-0.17%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[webknjaz]

My biggest concern is forcing yet another tool on contributors.

[jakob-keller]

My biggest concern is forcing yet another tool on contributors.

My sales pitch would be that in our context uv is primarily a direct replacement of pip-tools, but also (optionally) substitutes:

• pyenv, installers from python.org, ... (to provision Python toolchain)
• virtualenvwrapper, venv, ...? (for managing virtual environments)
• pip (as package installer)
• build (as build frontend in CI/CD)

For me personally, having worked mostly on poetry based projects, it's a single, well-known tool, that is trivial to adopt and improves developer experience by a lot. And it may be used in conjuncture with existing tools, if one prefers to take that route.

[webknjaz]

Well, let's try it out. I've outlined my concerns and I think that uv pip-compile would've been less intrusive. But I suppose it's okay to attempt doing this and revert if it doesn't work out.

[jakob-keller]

Well, let's try it out. I've outlined my concerns and I think that uv pip-compile would've been less intrusive. But I suppose it's okay to attempt doing this and revert if it doesn't work out.

I really, really appreciate your thoughtful reviews.

[jakob-keller]

@thehesiod: Thanks as well for your review and suggestions!

[jakob-keller]

Friendly reminder for reviewers to close any open conversations. Thanks!

[thehesiod]

hmm maybe I'll remove that req of unresolved conversations

[webknjaz]

hmm maybe I'll remove that req of unresolved conversations

That's a good requirement to have. Keep it. It facilitates more transparency in comms.