Fix PEP 660 metadata preparation fallback #10577

sbidoul · 2021-10-12T12:03:38Z

When using pyproject.toml and the build backend does not support PEP 660, prepare metadata using build_metadata_for_build_wheel instead of setup.py egg_info. Fixes #10573.

Also fixes #10531, because this PR reworks and strengthen the detection of directories that are not python projects (i.e. they have neither a pyproject.toml nor a setup.py).

TODO

vendor updated pep517 Add _supported_features() pyproject-hooks#133
add test with setup.py with setup_requires and pyproject.toml

sbidoul · 2021-10-12T17:31:40Z

@pypa/pip-committers, @takluyver (as pep517 maintainer) I'd like to hear your opinion here.

Following my late realization that pip runs setup.py develop in an isolated environment when there is a pyproject.toml, I conclude that we need to make sure that the build environment is prepared with the correct dynamic build requirements before doing metadata preparation. [added] This means that using get_requires_for_build_editable is not correct when we later discover that the backend does not support PEP 660 and w fallback to setup.py develop.

Therefore we need to detect earlier if the build backend supports build_editable (PEP 660), i.e., before installing the build requirements, to decide if we call get_requires_for_build_wheel or get_requires_for_build_editable.

So I propose to add a mechanism to the pep517 library to query if the backend _supports_build_editable().

This actually nicely simplifies the frontend implementation, at the cost of one additional backend call to discover its capabilities.

Since there might be some urgency (#10573 being a regression), I propose to keep this mechanism private between pep517 (the library) and pip for now, until we eventually design a proper mechanism for pep517 to expose backend capabilities.

This is what I have done this in the second commit of this PR. Your comments are very much welcome.

uranusjr · 2021-10-12T22:09:13Z

So I propose to add a mechanism to the pep517 library to query if the backend _supports_build_editable().

Should this be implemented as simply checking the existance of build_editable? I think this sounds reasonable as a stopgap; we can discuss the proper API after resolving the regression.

sbidoul · 2021-10-13T06:29:36Z

So I propose to add a mechanism to the pep517 library to query if the backend _supports_build_editable().

Should this be implemented as simply checking the existance of build_editable? I think this sounds reasonable as a stopgap; we can discuss the proper API after resolving the regression.

Yep, I don't see an alternative, so I'm continuing in that direction.

sbidoul · 2021-10-13T13:26:43Z

@pypa/pip-committers this is not ready to merge (see TODOs above), but this is now in good shape and ready to review and raise any concern you might have with this (which I hope there aren't many :).

src/pip/_internal/distributions/sdist.py

sbidoul · 2021-10-13T13:41:01Z

src/pip/_internal/req/req_install.py

+                source_dir=self.unpacked_source_directory,
+                isolated=self.isolated,
+                details=self.name or f"from {self.link}",
+            )


At least prepare_metadata has become simpler.

sbidoul · 2021-10-14T11:08:44Z

All done from my side, here. Now we need a pep517 release.

pradyunsg · 2021-10-15T13:11:01Z

FYI: once the pep517 release is made, you'll want to rebase on main -- to get #10583 in this PR.

When there is a pyproject.toml, metadata preparation must be done in the isolated build environment for legacy editable installs too (fixes a regression). Also detect earlier if an editable install must go through the legacy install path, to be sure to run it in an environment with the correct build requirements.

sbidoul · 2021-10-18T12:54:12Z

I vendored pep517 0.12 and rebased.

uranusjr · 2021-10-18T12:58:40Z

news/10573.bugfix.rst

+backend does not support :pep:`660`, prepare metadata using
+``prepare_metadata_for_build_wheel`` instead of ``setup.py egg_info``. Also, refuse
+installing projects that only have a ``setup.cfg`` and no ``setup.py`` nor
+``pyproject.toml``. These restore the pre-21.3 behaviour.


Is the second sentence (the Also one) duplicating the 10531 fragment? I feel it should appeat only once (unfortunately Towncrier does not offer a natural way to reference two issues in one fragment).

It overlaps yes. This second one specifically covers editables and accepting it was a regression in 21.3 whereas 10531 is a fix of something introduced in 21.1 or 21.2.

uranusjr · 2021-10-18T13:01:06Z

How does this change interact with non-pyproject.toml legacy setuptools editable installs (where we should still run setup.py egg_info without isolation)? I don't see special treatment of it here, does it go through another code path and is not relevant in this patch?

sbidoul · 2021-10-18T13:08:09Z

How does this change interact with non-pyproject.toml legacy setuptools editable installs (where we should still run setup.py egg_info without isolation)? I don't see special treatment of it here, does it go through another code path and is not relevant in this patch?

It should be covered in prepare_metadata (if use_pep517: ... else: prepare_metadata_legacy).

$ pip install -e setuppyonly/
Obtaining file:///home/me/tmp/setuppyonly
  Preparing metadata (setup.py) ... done
Installing collected packages: toto
  Running setup.py develop for toto
Successfully installed toto-0.1

vs

❯ pip install -e pyproject+setupcfg/
Obtaining file:///home/me/tmp/pyproject%2Bsetupcfg
  Installing build dependencies ... done
  Checking if build backend supports build_editable ... done
  Getting requirements to build wheel ... done
  Preparing wheel metadata (pyproject.toml) ... done
Installing collected packages: toto
  Running setup.py develop for toto
Successfully installed toto-0.0.0

uranusjr · 2021-10-18T13:12:24Z

So mostly unrelated to the change made here. Thanks, that makes sense.

sbidoul · 2021-10-18T13:14:00Z

Which makes me think we should print Preparing metadata (pyproject.toml) instead of Preparing wheel metadata (pyproject.toml)..., except in PEP 660 mode where we print Preparing editable metadata (pyproject.toml)...

Do not mention wheel, as this code path is also used in legacy editable mode with isolation, where no wheel is involved. This also aligns with the new log entry for setup.py egg-info which says "Preparing metadata (setup.py)".

…back

sbidoul added this to the 21.3.1 milestone Oct 12, 2021

sbidoul mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2021

21.3: Breaking editable installation with No module named pip error #10573

Closed

1 task

sbidoul force-pushed the fix-pep660-metadata-preparation-fallback branch 2 times, most recently from 4fcbe5d to 1b34c0c Compare October 12, 2021 17:16

edmorley mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2021

Pip 20.3+ and its new dependency resolver heroku/heroku-buildpack-python#1109

Closed

weiji14 mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2021

Increase minimum thumbnail height in style.css to fit text GenericMappingTools/pygmt#1575

Merged

5 tasks

sbidoul force-pushed the fix-pep660-metadata-preparation-fallback branch from 1b34c0c to f0d0045 Compare October 13, 2021 06:19

sbidoul mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2021

Better detection of invalid __legacy__ PEP 517 projects #10534

Closed

2 tasks

sbidoul force-pushed the fix-pep660-metadata-preparation-fallback branch 5 times, most recently from 3b31f05 to 39db086 Compare October 13, 2021 13:23

sbidoul commented Oct 13, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/pip/_internal/distributions/sdist.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

sbidoul commented Oct 13, 2021

View reviewed changes

sbidoul marked this pull request as ready for review October 13, 2021 14:31

sbidoul force-pushed the fix-pep660-metadata-preparation-fallback branch from 39db086 to f992465 Compare October 13, 2021 15:45

sbidoul mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2021

Add _supported_features() pypa/pyproject-hooks#133

Merged

sbidoul force-pushed the fix-pep660-metadata-preparation-fallback branch 6 times, most recently from e3c47e7 to 9f94a31 Compare October 14, 2021 09:05

jezdez mentioned this pull request Oct 14, 2021

Use pip's in-tree build feature conda/conda-build#4294

Closed

zklaus mentioned this pull request Oct 15, 2021

Pin pip!=21.3 to avoid pypa/pip#10573 with editable installs ESMValGroup/ESMValCore#1359

Merged

7 tasks

sbidoul added 6 commits October 18, 2021 14:31

Add TODO

d362431

Reject projects that have neither a pyproject.toml nor a setup.py

ddfeaae

Add failing tests for issue 10573

619b257

Upgrade pep517 to 0.12.0

b0eb95b

Split _setup_isolation for readability

b07a956

sbidoul force-pushed the fix-pep660-metadata-preparation-fallback branch from 9f94a31 to b07a956 Compare October 18, 2021 12:35

uranusjr reviewed Oct 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

uranusjr approved these changes Oct 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

Simplify "Preparing metadata" logging

106042f

Do not mention wheel, as this code path is also used in legacy editable mode with isolation, where no wheel is involved. This also aligns with the new log entry for setup.py egg-info which says "Preparing metadata (setup.py)".

sbidoul force-pushed the fix-pep660-metadata-preparation-fallback branch from 928fec1 to 106042f Compare October 18, 2021 13:21

DiddiLeija approved these changes Oct 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

uranusjr merged commit d01dd4a into pypa:main Oct 21, 2021

sbidoul deleted the fix-pep660-metadata-preparation-fallback branch October 21, 2021 06:14

pradyunsg pushed a commit to pradyunsg/pip that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2021

Merge PR pypa#10577 from sbidoul/fix-pep660-metadata-preparation-fall…

4a4b613

…back

github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 5, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix PEP 660 metadata preparation fallback #10577

Fix PEP 660 metadata preparation fallback #10577

sbidoul commented Oct 12, 2021 •

edited

Loading

sbidoul commented Oct 12, 2021 •

edited

Loading

uranusjr commented Oct 12, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 13, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 13, 2021

sbidoul Oct 13, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 14, 2021

pradyunsg commented Oct 15, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 18, 2021

uranusjr Oct 18, 2021

sbidoul Oct 18, 2021

uranusjr commented Oct 18, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 18, 2021

uranusjr commented Oct 18, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 18, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Fix PEP 660 metadata preparation fallback #10577

Fix PEP 660 metadata preparation fallback #10577

Conversation

sbidoul commented Oct 12, 2021 • edited Loading

sbidoul commented Oct 12, 2021 • edited Loading

uranusjr commented Oct 12, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 13, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 13, 2021

sbidoul Oct 13, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sbidoul commented Oct 14, 2021

pradyunsg commented Oct 15, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 18, 2021

uranusjr Oct 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sbidoul Oct 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

uranusjr commented Oct 18, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 18, 2021

uranusjr commented Oct 18, 2021

sbidoul commented Oct 18, 2021 • edited Loading

sbidoul commented Oct 12, 2021 •

edited

Loading

sbidoul commented Oct 12, 2021 •

edited

Loading

sbidoul commented Oct 18, 2021 •

edited

Loading