Handle Ctrl-C properly in uvx

[zanieb]

As we do in uv run

[charliermarsh]

The setup is identical for both commands, I think...? What are you seeing.

[zanieb]

Oh. Mentioned at #6329 (comment) cc @bluss

[charliermarsh]

Thanks I'll check it out. Maybe has to do with the wrapper? Not sure yet.

[bluss]

Thanks I'll check it out. Maybe has to do with the wrapper? Not sure yet.

That's a surprise, but it's the case, the problem is for uvx and not uv tool run.

[zanieb]

Oh, we invoke uv tool run as a subprocess in uvx. We'll need to be more sophisticated there.

[charliermarsh]

👍 👍

[prrao87]

Hang on, is uvx fundamentally different from uv tool run in the sense that it's invoked as a subprocess?
The docs page here seems to indicate that it's simply an alias:
https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/tools/#running-tools

I'm now thoroughly confused when I should be using uvx vs. uv tool run 😅.

[charliermarsh]

They're meant to be entirely equivalent. It's an "alias" but it's not literally a bash alias (since we don't have a way to "install" an alias), it's a tiny wrapper script that just forwards on to uv tool run.

[charliermarsh]

Any perceptible or behavioral difference between uvx and uv tool run should be considered a bug.

[charliermarsh]

(...like this one 😂)

[zanieb]

There's a few additional ms of overhead — but yeah it's functionally an alias just can't trivially be implemented as a true shell alias. There are a few other minor differences, like we change the help menu to say uvx when you're using it.

[prrao87]

I suppose what's confusing in the docs is that the top half of the tools docs page uses uvx and the bottom half switches to using uv tool run. I wonder if there's a clearer way to state that users can treat them as functionally equivalent, and have example commands that are consistent?
https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/tools/

[zanieb]

@prrao87 I'm a bit confused, I don't think we switch to uv tool run, we switch to uv tool install which is different.

[charliermarsh]

Closed by #6346.

[prrao87]

@zanieb I now understand it much better. Thanks for clarifying!