Self-contained Python scripts with uv

Post by cmgbhm » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 12:51 PM UTC

tiltowait wrote: post #11

holysoles wrote: post #2

This seems like a good packaging alternative to containerizing for smaller utilities. Now to convince all my coworkers to install uv..

The showstopper for us is our SCA vulnerability scanner doesn't work with uv yet :(

Post by atoav » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 12:56 PM UTC

gorgoiler wrote: post #34

hanikesn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's justification for that: https://peps.python.org/pep-0723/#why-not-use-possibly-restr...

Thanks for the link. My counterpoints to the PEP’s arguments are (1) we’re about to run Python so we presumably have a Python parser on hand anyway ; and (2) for the foreseeable future it is going to be capable of parsing all previous versions of Python. It’s a bit fast and loose though. I can see though that it’s helpful for long term stability to have two completely separate languages for dependencies versus the ac…

Post by lioeters » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 1:17 PM UTC

Galanwe wrote: post #30

mayli wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have my own ugly uve script $ cat ~/.local/bin/uve #!/bin/bash temp=$(mktemp) uv export --script $1 --no-hashes > $temp uv run --with-requirements $temp vim $1 unlink $temp Hope editor could support the `uv python find --script` soon.

FYI, have a look at "trap .. EXIT" to defer cleanups like your unlink. It's neat cause it will run even if the script is interrupted / fails before the unlink.

  temp=$(mktemp)
  trap 'unlink $temp' EXIT
  # Do things

Post by Retr0id » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 1:38 PM UTC

gorgoiler wrote: post #25

stared wrote: post #21

My pet peeve (in general, not specific to UV, which I genuinely appreciate) is using comment sections for controlling code execution. Using comments for linters and developer notes is perfectly acceptable. However, for configuration or execution-related data, a far superior pattern would be something like: UV_ENV = { "dependencies": { "requests": "2.32.3", "pandas": "2.2.3" } } This approach has clear advantages: - I…

I agree, but I would go a step further. You’re using a magic constant that doesn’t do anything at runtime. It’s only there to be parsed by static analysis. In your case that’s uv doing the parsing but another tool might delete it as unused code. In the sense that it’s one thing pretending to be another, for me, it’s in the same category as a magic comment. Instead, why not make a call to uv telling it what to do?: im…

    print("hello")
    match 123:
        case _: pass

Post by loloquwowndueo » Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 1:42 PM UTC

gorgoiler wrote: post #25

stared wrote: post #21

My pet peeve (in general, not specific to UV, which I genuinely appreciate) is using comment sections for controlling code execution. Using comments for linters and developer notes is perfectly acceptable. However, for configuration or execution-related data, a far superior pattern would be something like: UV_ENV = { "dependencies": { "requests": "2.32.3", "pandas": "2.2.3" } } This approach has clear advantages: - I…

I agree, but I would go a step further. You’re using a magic constant that doesn’t do anything at runtime. It’s only there to be parsed by static analysis. In your case that’s uv doing the parsing but another tool might delete it as unused code. In the sense that it’s one thing pretending to be another, for me, it’s in the same category as a magic comment. Instead, why not make a call to uv telling it what to do?: im…