3 ms·

I see you just changed your article from what it was when we commented: if ! test -f uv.lock || ! uv lock --check 2>/dev/null; then uv lock; fi Your new ver

by remram 1y ago

I see you just changed your article from what it was when we commented: if ! test -f uv.lock || ! uv lock --check 2>/dev/null; then uv lock; fi Your new version no longer has the bug we are talking about. I don't know why you are trying to pretend it was never there though?

nickjj 1y ago
> Your new version no longer has the bug we are talking about. I don't know why you are trying to pretend it was never there though? I'm not sure I understand what you mean? 1. I posted the article last week on my site 2. I noticed it was on HN today (yay) 3. I looked at the parent's comment 4. The parent's description isn't what happens with the original code 5. I made the comment you're replying to on HN to address their concerns and included a refactored version of the original condition for clarity then said I pushed the updates 6. I pushed the updates to both git and my site so both match up There's nothing to pretend about and there's no bug because both versions of the code do the same thing, the 2nd version is just easier to read and requires less `uv` knowledge to know what happens when `uv lock` runs with an invalid lock file. The history is in the HN comment I wrote and git history. It doesn't make sense to leave the original code in the blog post and then write a wall of text to explain how it worked fine but here's a modified version for clarity. Both versions of the code have the same outcome which is ensuring there's a valid lock file before syncing. What would you have done differently? I saw feedback, saw room for improvement, left an audit trail in the comments and moved on. Here's the commits https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/commit/d1b7b92868039d2b429f636c015b08a0bceaf6c0 https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/commit/d1b7b9... and https://github.com/nickjj/docker-django-example/commit/a12e2fbbc8570616bc66e4271348709d0a3a0dc1 https://github.com/nickjj/docker-django-example/commit/a12e2... btw.
- remram 1y ago
  > The parent's description isn't what happens with the original code Yes, it is: both gchamonlive and myself pointed out that if your lock file exists and is out of date, your (previous) script would silently update it before installing. This would happen because `uv lock --check` would return false, triggering the call to `uv lock`. Your new version no longer does that, because you removed `! uv lock --check` from the condition.
  - nickjj 1y ago
    > Yes, it is: both gchamonlive and myself pointed out that if your lock file exists and is out of date, your (previous) script would silently update it before installing Check my original comment, it doesn't operate like this. You can try it yourself in the same way I outlined in the comment. `uv lock` fails if your lock file has a mismatch and will produce a human readable error saying what's wrong.
    - remram 1y ago
      > `uv lock` fails if your lock file has a mismatch Now you seem even more confused. Do you mean `uv sync` will fail? `uv lock` is literally the command you run when there's a mismatch between pyproject.toml and uv.lock to update uv.lock. That's why it's called lock. Here's a full reproducer: https://gist.github.com/remram44/21c98db9a80213b2a3a5cce959d9792b https://gist.github.com/remram44/21c98db9a80213b2a3a5cce959d... Check out branch "previous-blog". Run `docker build . -t uvtest`. You will see that it builds with no error, and if you run `docker run uvtest cat /app/uv.lock`, you will see that the uv.lock in the image is NOT the one in the repo. It has been updated silently, which is what gchamonlive and myself pointed out. Now check out branch "master". Run `docker build . -t uvtest` again. You will see `error: The lockfile at `uv.lock` needs to be updated` which is what you say always happened.

by remram 1y ago

nickjj 1y ago

> Your new version no longer has the bug we are talking about. I don't know why you are trying to pretend it was never there though? I'm not sure I understand what you mean? 1. I posted the article last week on my site 2. I noticed it was on HN today (yay) 3. I looked at the parent's comment 4. The parent's description isn't what happens with the original code 5. I made the comment you're replying to on HN to address their concerns and included a refactored version of the original condition for clarity then said I pushed the updates 6. I pushed the updates to both git and my site so both match up There's nothing to pretend about and there's no bug because both versions of the code do the same thing, the 2nd version is just easier to read and requires less `uv` knowledge to know what happens when `uv lock` runs with an invalid lock file. The history is in the HN comment I wrote and git history. It doesn't make sense to leave the original code in the blog post and then write a wall of text to explain how it worked fine but here's a modified version for clarity. Both versions of the code have the same outcome which is ensuring there's a valid lock file before syncing. What would you have done differently? I saw feedback, saw room for improvement, left an audit trail in the comments and moved on. Here's the commits https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/commit/d1b7b92868039d2b429f636c015b08a0bceaf6c0 https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/commit/d1b7b9... and https://github.com/nickjj/docker-django-example/commit/a12e2fbbc8570616bc66e4271348709d0a3a0dc1 https://github.com/nickjj/docker-django-example/commit/a12e2... btw.

remram 1y ago
> The parent's description isn't what happens with the original code Yes, it is: both gchamonlive and myself pointed out that if your lock file exists and is out of date, your (previous) script would silently update it before installing. This would happen because `uv lock --check` would return false, triggering the call to `uv lock`. Your new version no longer does that, because you removed `! uv lock --check` from the condition.
- nickjj 1y ago
  > Yes, it is: both gchamonlive and myself pointed out that if your lock file exists and is out of date, your (previous) script would silently update it before installing Check my original comment, it doesn't operate like this. You can try it yourself in the same way I outlined in the comment. `uv lock` fails if your lock file has a mismatch and will produce a human readable error saying what's wrong.
  - remram 1y ago
    > `uv lock` fails if your lock file has a mismatch Now you seem even more confused. Do you mean `uv sync` will fail? `uv lock` is literally the command you run when there's a mismatch between pyproject.toml and uv.lock to update uv.lock. That's why it's called lock. Here's a full reproducer: https://gist.github.com/remram44/21c98db9a80213b2a3a5cce959d9792b https://gist.github.com/remram44/21c98db9a80213b2a3a5cce959d... Check out branch "previous-blog". Run `docker build . -t uvtest`. You will see that it builds with no error, and if you run `docker run uvtest cat /app/uv.lock`, you will see that the uv.lock in the image is NOT the one in the repo. It has been updated silently, which is what gchamonlive and myself pointed out. Now check out branch "master". Run `docker build . -t uvtest` again. You will see `error: The lockfile at `uv.lock` needs to be updated` which is what you say always happened.