feat(setuptools): add find_requirements function #5648
Conversation
find_requirements utility function is supposed to simplify integration
between `pipenv` and `setup.py` scripts. Instead of synchronizing them
manually, users could just
```python
# file: setup.py
from setuptools import setup, find_packages
from pipenv.setuptools import find_requirements
setup(
name="very-nice-package",
version="0.1.0",
author="John Doe",
description="The Nicest Package",
url="https://example.com/very-nice-package",
python_requires=">=3.9, <4",
packages=find_packages(),
install_requires=find_requirements(),
)
```
This would fetch requirements from Pipfile.lock every time they run
```bash
pip install .
```
|
It seems like the python community has decided to move away from 'setup.py' so I think it's late to the party. Maybe we can merge it. |
|
I disagree with adding a utility that isn't actually in use within |
I've been mostly working with Go since 2019, perhaps I missed this shift. What are people using nowadays? |
I understand your reasoning and I still think that it could be useful. Of course, it is up to you guys whether you wish to include it or not, thought one small utility function put into its own package won't hurt things much.
That's true tho. I can rename the file, of course. The main concern here is, I believe, the thing that @oz123 said about Python community departing from |
|
The community isn't departing setup.py, I am sorry for being terse and wrong. See here: See also more on build systems for python projects: I guess adding this to our project, would be one of the first steps of making pipenv a build system. @matteius would you support adding this if renamed? |
|
Wow, @oz123, when I opened this issue I didn't recognise how far it could lead us. I love your idea of the Realistically, I think it would be the next logical step. For now, Pipenv is mostly a development tool for managing dependencies. For everything else you run Pipenv reminds me of Rust's Cargo in many ways, yet cargo can build applications. If we were to introduce the build command - that's definitely a game changer. And I'd be happy to lend my helping hand if needed! 😃 |
|
TBH it's been my secret desire for a long time. Although I invested much time in cleaning pipenv dependencies. That last goal is about to be reached. |
|
I'd like to also note that this function would be a bit more involved if we wanted to make it work with all possible types of import allowed by the setup scripts. Currently, I altered it to accept Git-based imports like so: def find_requirements():
def requirement(name: str, info: dict[str, str]) -> str:
return (
f"{name} @ git+{info['git']}@{info['ref']}#egg={name}"
if "git" in info
else name + info["version"]
)
with open("Pipfile.lock") as lock:
requirements: dict[str, dict] = json.load(lock)["default"]
return [requirement(name, info) for name, info in requirements.items()] |
|
My opinion is not to merge this function that is not in use by pipenv, and to invest more time into defining what would give pipenv package publication abilities. I think that we would not want to parse the Pipfile or Pipfile.lock for package publishing, and these are intended for managing installable requirements that are project wide. Instead I think we should adopt the similar pyproject.toml, setup.cfg (and we probably have to support setup.py install_requires as well, but it should not just pull everything from the lock file IMO). |
The issue
Pipenv is the de facto standard for virtual environment and dependency management in Python. Yet, Python's main package and CLI distribution mechanism is
setup.pyscripts. As of now, these two things are not integrated, but they can be!I saw an issue regarding this problem somewhere here but, for the life of me, I can't find it now 😞. The issue I'm referring to pointed at
pipenv-setupas a way to handlesetup.py + pipenvintegration. One of the pipenv maintainers suggested that, perhaps,pipenv-setupitself could be integrated into pipenv.However, upon attempting to use
pipenv-setupI encountered a problem described in this existing issue and couldn't fix it using advice provided there. So I did what any programmer would in this situation: I wrote my own simple utility function to replace that tool.The fix
The
find_requirementsutility function is supposed to simplify integration betweenpipenvandsetup.pyscripts. Instead of synchronising them manually, users could justThis would fetch requirements from
Pipfile.lockevery time they runThis solution also does not rely on a separate tool one would have to install and regularly run, integrate into CI/CD, etc. Using
find_requirementsis simple, straightforward, and embedded with each call tosetup.py.Dear Reviewer,
This is a quick and simple implementation and it could probably benefit from a few utility functions you guys have already written that I am not aware of just yet. If you can suggest such functions or, at least, point me in their general direction, I would be happy to investigate and use them to improve this PR.
This PR does not have an associated issue because I decided that this code is simple enough and if it is rejected during review I won't be too upset about the time it took me to write it.
The checklist
news/directory to describe this fix with the extension.bugfix.rst,.feature.rst,.behavior.rst,.doc.rst..vendor.rst. or.trivial.rst(this will appear in the release changelog). Use semantic line breaks and name the file after the issue number or the PR #.