docs: recommend uv instead of pipx for running/installing#957
docs: recommend uv instead of pipx for running/installing#957
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #957 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.67% 82.63% -5.04%
==========================================
Files 73 73
Lines 3433 3433
==========================================
- Hits 3010 2837 -173
- Misses 423 596 +173
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
jimisola
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was waiting with this changes until we moved to gitlab.com as I think I mentioned in the TODO/priority list in our maintainer chat.
I only see changes in the docs not in the CI/CD. I think that it's essential to use the same build and package tools in CI/CD as we recommend in our docs. How many of us have tested with uv? Just so that we don't recommend something that there might be issues with.
Also see a value as not freeze these type of changes, CI/CD etc, until the move to gitlab.com so that we don't have to continue to make changes to the GitLab CI/CD that @TimKnight-DWP has worked with.
Once moved to gitlab.com, I'm all for uv and a move to hatch (as per previous chat).
amimas
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds interesting, although I'm not really familiar with uv yet. Will try to learn it sometime. If this looks good to you, please feel free to merge.
One question: if we're instructing uv for local dev, why don't we use that in the CI too?
| * [uv](https://github.com/astral-sh/uv): | ||
| ```shell | ||
| pipx run --spec 'gitlabform>=3,<4' gitlabform | ||
| uvx --from 'gitlabform>=3,<4' gitlabform |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't really about uv. Looks like we already had constraint about gitlabform version being lower than 4. Not really familiar with either commands or what it's for. Should this be changed, now that we're already on version 4? But... what's the point of having a constraint? If we don't specify it, will it automatically install the latest one?
|
I created this as I noticed that As I was reading about the fixes to update the docs I could really find a good one :/, that's why I suggested this change. I didn't want to change to dev/CI/CD solution yet as I didn't use Anyway, we don't need to move forward with this yet, we can wait for the move to gitlab.com first. |
|
Ok. I think that we shall wait until the move to gitlab.com. There are a couple of things that I think that we should do at the same time. |
0465db2 to
8fd8d92
Compare
as it handles Python upgrades automatically, while pipx may keep you stuck with the existing, old version of Python (unless I am missing something) It's also the ✨shiny new thing✨
8fd8d92 to
807cb33
Compare
as it handles Python upgrades automatically, while pipx may keep you stuck with the existing, old version of Python (unless I am missing something)
It's also the ✨shiny new thing✨