PEP 735 what is it’s goal? Does it solve our dependency hell issue?

A deep dive and out comes this limitation

The mutual compatibility of Dependency Groups is not guaranteed.

https://peps.python.org/pep-0735/#lockfile-generation

Huh?! Why not?

mutual compatibility or go pound sand!

pip install -r requirements/dev.lock
pip install -r requirements/kit.lock -r requirements/manage.lock

The above code, purposefully, does not afford pip a fighting chance. If there are incompatibilities, it’ll come out when trying randomized combinations.

Without a means to test for and guarantee mutual compatibility, end users will always find themselves in dependency hell.

Any combination of requirement files (or dependency groups), intended for the same venv, MUST always work!

What if this is scaled further, instead of one package, a chain of packages?!

  • bamboo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I think you’re expecting this PEP to be something that it is not. It is not supposed to be a full solution to dependency hell (which I’m not really sure that there is). It is supposed to just allow a static method to declare dependencies, notably supporting both Python package and non-Python-package dependencies. There are plenty of use cases for when you might want incompatible sets of dependencies, for a simple example consider a graphics library with both a Vulkan and OpenGL backend. You could reasonably argue that you should allow both to coexist and just select the best one at runtime, but when you’re dealing with native libraries that’s not always possible, and there is no way to make a guarantee about compatibility without excluding all non-pure Python dependencies.

    • logging_strictOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      Wasn’t aware that this PEP is including non-Python package dependencies or how that affects dependency resolution.

      Managing python dependencies is challenging enough

  • logging_strictOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Limitations of requirements.txt files

    https://peps.python.org/pep-0735/#limitations-of-requirements-txt-files

    The only benefit i can see, is to attempt to bring requirements files into pyproject.toml and an additional layer to abstract away from pip.

    ^^ this does not keep me awake at night nor is it a substitute for porn

    The PEP author’s intentions are good, puts focus on a little discussed topic.

    The outcome … questionable

    If this is all it’s doing, that’s not enough. Ignores the elephant in the room.

    Which are

    • fixing dependency conflicts

    • mutual compatibility

    Fixing dependency conflicts would be easier if can work with existing proven tooling. Which acts upon r/w files rather than pyproject.toml, a config file; shouldn’t constantly be updated.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      additional layer to abstract away from pip

      reqs.txt files are not standardized and pip can read from a pyproject.toml - which is - using pip install .

      there are still many unresolved matters with dependency resolution, but we need to leave requirements.txt files behind.

      • logging_strictOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Throwing out an alternative. Not making the assumption that more TOML is better. Cuz the contents of those requirements.txt files are rw, not ro. I see pyproject.toml as a ro configuration file.

        Do you agree or should pyproject.toml be rw?

        Another option, strictly validated YAML.

        For the configuration section, before parsing occurs, strict validation occurs against a schema.

        TOML vs strictyaml – https://hitchdev.com/strictyaml/why-not/toml/

        • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          I didn’t know about StrictYAML, we’re really going in circles lol

          TOML is already RW by Poetry, PDM, and uv.

          • logging_strictOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            18 hours ago

            Not in circles, this is helping for me.

            If you have strong support for a rw toml, would like to hear your arguments

          • logging_strictOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            Highly suggest reading the strictyaml docs

            The author lays out both

            Should be required reading for anyone dealing with config files, especially those encountering yaml.

            Warning: After reading these, and confirming the examples yourself, seeing packages using pyyaml will come off as lessor

          • logging_strictOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            Yeah, but should it be (rw)?

            If it’s rw, it’s a database, not a config file.

            No software designer thinks … postgreSQL, sqlite, mariadb, duckdb, … nah TOML

            Or at least yaml turns out to be not a strange suggestion

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              17 hours ago

              You have a strange definition of “database”. Almost every language I touch on a daily basis (JS, Rust, C#) uses their package meta file to declare dependencies as well, yet none of those languages treat it as a “database”.

              • logging_strictOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                especially JS, some packages.json are super long. The sqlite author would blush looking at that

              • logging_strictOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                13 hours ago

                In this super specific case, the data that is being worked with is a many list of dict. A schema-less table. There would be frequent updates to this data. As package versions are upgraded, fixes are made, and security patches are added.

                • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  It seems you’re describing a lock file. No one is proposing to use or currently using pyproject.toml as a lock file. And even lock files have well defined schemas, not just an arbitrary JSON-like object.

            • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              18 hours ago

              it’s a config file that should be readable and writeable by both humans and tools. So yeah, it makes sense.

              And I don’t lile yaml personally, so that’s a plus to me. My pet peeve is never knowing what names before a colon are part of the schema and which ones are user-defined. Even with strictyaml, reading the nesting only through indentation is harder than in toml.

              • logging_strictOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                12 hours ago

                You are not wrong, yaml can be confusing.

                Recently got tripped up on sequence of mapping of mapping. Which is just a simple list of records.

                But for the life of me, couldn’t get a simple example working.

                Ended up reversed the logic.

                Instead of parsing a yaml str. Created the sample list of dict and asked strictyaml to produce the yaml str.

                Turns out the record is indented four spaces, not two.

                - file: "great_file_name_0.yml"
                    key_0: "value 0"
                - file: "great_file_name_1.yml"
                    key_0: "value 0"
                

                Something like ^^. That is a yaml database. It has records, a schema, and can be safely validated!

                The strictyaml documentation covers ridiculously simple cases. There are no practical examples. So it was no help.

                Parser kept complaining about duplicate keys.

                • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  It has records, a schema, and can be safely validated!

                  uh… a database implies use of a database management system. I don’t think saying that a YAML/TOML/JSON/whatever file is a database is very useful, as these files are usually created and modified without any guarantees.

                  It’s not even about being incorrect, it’s just not that useful.