feat: support extracting from uv.lock#314
Merged
Merged
Conversation
erikvarga
reviewed
Dec 3, 2024
G-Rath
force-pushed
the
extractor/support-uv
branch
from
December 3, 2024 18:27
f9d6d49 to
8a98e1e
Compare
G-Rath
force-pushed
the
extractor/support-uv
branch
from
December 4, 2024 18:33
8a98e1e to
cffad09
Compare
G-Rath
force-pushed
the
extractor/support-uv
branch
2 times, most recently
from
December 5, 2024 21:27
717e630 to
a064497
Compare
G-Rath
force-pushed
the
extractor/support-uv
branch
from
January 20, 2025 18:12
a064497 to
029837e
Compare
another-rex
approved these changes
Jan 20, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds support for parsing
uv.lockfiles which are TOML based and overall seem pretty straightforward - the main gotcha I came across was that they nest their "groups" table (calledoptional-dependencies) in thepackagearray of tables (I think those are the right TOML terms), meaning it actually ends up getting stuck on the last "package" entry even though it is not package specific.Beyond that, I think the main two areas that could do with expanding are:
such as(I figured this out)gituvonly tracks the direct dependency that has been grouped, but does not mark transitive dependencies; however because it captures both top-level dependencies (inpackage.metadata) and package dependencies (in[[package]].dependencies) I think in theory we should be able to walk the tree ourselves to determine what dependencies belong in what groupResolves google/osv-scanner#1406