Apply Absorption Law when normalizing markers

[charliermarsh]

E.g., python_version < '3.11' or (python_version < '3.11' and implementation_name == 'cpython') should be reduced to python_version < '3.11'.

[charliermarsh]

I wonder if we should do something like this: https://docs.rs/boolean_expression/latest/boolean_expression/enum.Expr.html#method.simplify_via_bdd

[charliermarsh]

Alternatively, maybe we can just apply this in the or and and methods (make them smart constructors)?

[BurntSushi]

I think smart constructors are the way to go. To make smart constructors work, you have to make sure they are the only things capable of constructing the internal representation. You also need to make all normalization steps inductive. On top of this, I think the normalization logic (which would need to be ported to smart constructors in pep508_rs) currently lives in uv-resolver because it relies on a pubgrub type. So that dependency on pubgrub would probably need to be broken.

I would love to do this personally as I love smart constructors and they've worked out great when I used them in the past (like in regex-syntax). But it's a meaty task I think.

[ibraheemdev]

I'm not sure the smart constructor helps with the simplification. For example, the expression ((x and y) or z) is fully simplified, but combining that with or y we get ((x and y) or z) or y, which simplifies to y or z. Importantly, the complete simplification cannot be performed inductively, so a SAT solver (such as this) would need to be run after the entire marker tree has been constructed.

I think it would be helpful to know what kind of expressions the lockfile generates to see how far we need to take this. We can solve this issue using our current recursive approach and see whether more complex cases come up. It's totally possible that an inductive approach that only looks one layer deep is enough for us, but I would hesitate to add smart constructors and them end up not being useful because we need to do a recursive solve anyways.

[notatallshaw-gts]

FYI I came across this today with the following example:

$ echo "pylint" | uv pip compile - --annotation-style line --python-version 3.10 --universal 2>/dev/null | grep dill
dill==0.3.8 ; python_version < '3.11' or python_version >= '3.11'  # via pylint

[charliermarsh]

Confusingly there are Python versions that do not match either of those bounds. For example, 3.11.0a0 would not match either.

[notatallshaw-gts]

Confusingly there are Python versions that do not match either of those bounds. For example, 3.11.0a0 would not match either.

I don't feel like that's a correct interpretation of Python version numbers.

When you are installing into a Python installation there is only one specific version number available for that Python. So if you are installing into Python 3.11.0a0 then all versions of Python available (i.e. the one you are installing into) are pre-releases and therefore python_version>= 3.11 matches 3.11.0a0.

But that's just me thinking out loud, when I get a moment I'll check what pip does and read through the spec.

[charliermarsh]

I think per the spec it's correct. I actually agree that we should probably simplify that, but I think that's why it doesn't get simplified today.

python_version>= 3.11 is implicitly python_version>= 3.11.0, and 3.11.0a0 is not >= 3.11.0, right?

[notatallshaw-gts]

and 3.11.0a0 is not >= 3.11.0, right

My understanding is per PEP 440 3.11.0a0 matches >= 3.11.0, when 3.11.0a0 is the only version available because then pre-releases are implied. So my logic was that when you are installing into Python it's version is the only version available, and therefore you can always take pre-releases to be applied.

But, this was just all off the top of my head, I should of really waited to get home and test it out. I will do so later.

[notatallshaw]

Got home and ran some tests and read some specs and I still think uv isn't correct here, I created a seperate issue: #4714

[charliermarsh]

I filed a separate issue for that normalization here: #4719. (It's different than what's described in this issue.)