fix(puzzle): handle self-referential extras

[abn]

Resolves: #7646

The issue this is trying to fix can be reproduced as follows.

poetry new foobar
cd foobar
poetry add -E all pbs-installer

This should do the same thing as poetry add -E download -E install pbs-installer, but it does not at the moment.

Testing

Using pipx

pipx install --suffix=@10106 'poetry @ git+https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry.git@refs/pull/10106/head'
alias poetry=poetry@10106
poetry new foobar
cd foobar
poetry add -E all pbs-installer

Using a container (podman | docker)

podman run --rm -i --entrypoint bash docker.io/python:latest <<EOF
set -xe
python -m pip install --disable-pip-version-check -q git+https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry.git@refs/pull/10106/head
poetry new foobar
pushd foobar
poetry add -E all pbs-installer
EOF

Summary by Sourcery

Tests:

• Add tests for resolving self-referential extras dependency resolution.

Summary by Sourcery

Fix the resolution of self-referential extras to consider nested extras.

Bug Fixes:

• Fixed an issue where self-referential extras were not resolved correctly when nested extras were involved.

Tests:

• Added tests for resolving self-referential extras dependency resolution.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request fixes an issue where self-referential extras were not being resolved correctly. It adds tests to verify the fix and updates the solver to handle self-referential extras.

Class diagram for dependency resolution changes

Loading

classDiagram
    class Package {
        +name: str
        +extras: Dict
        +requires: List
        +is_root(): bool
    }

    class Dependency {
        +name: str
        +extras: Set
        +features: List
        +is_optional(): bool
        +in_extras: List
    }

    class Provider {
        +complete_package(package: Package, dependency: Dependency)
    }

    Package -- Dependency : contains >
    Provider -- Package : processes >
    Provider -- Dependency : resolves >

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Added tests for resolving self-referential extras dependency resolution.	Added new test cases to verify that self-referential extras are resolved correctly. Added a new fixture to create packages with extras and self-referential extras. Added new test cases to verify that self-referential extras are resolved correctly during installation.	tests/puzzle/test_solver.py tests/installation/test_installer.py tests/conftest.py
Updated the solver to handle self-referential extras.	Modified the solver to correctly identify and resolve self-referential extras. Ensured that the solver does not get stuck in an infinite loop when resolving self-referential extras.	src/poetry/puzzle/provider.py

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!
• Generate a plan of action for an issue: Comment @sourcery-ai plan on
  an issue to generate a plan of action for it.

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @abn - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟡 Testing: 1 issue found
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[dimbleby]

putting my review together I think this patch improves on what you currently have

diff --git a/src/poetry/puzzle/provider.py b/src/poetry/puzzle/provider.py
index 1d081a3c..6793ba20 100644
--- a/src/poetry/puzzle/provider.py
+++ b/src/poetry/puzzle/provider.py
@@ -458,19 +458,29 @@ class Provider:
             dependency = dependency_package.dependency
             requires = package.requires

-        optional_dependencies = []
+        found_extras = set()
+        optional_dependencies = set()
         _dependencies = []
-
-        # If some extras/features were required, we need to
-        # add a special dependency representing the base package
-        # to the current package
         if dependency.extras:
-            for extra in dependency.extras:
-                if extra not in package.extras:
+            # Find all the optional dependencies that are wanted - taking care to allow
+            # for self-referential extras.
+            stack = list(dependency.extras)
+            while stack:
+                extra = stack.pop()
+                if extra in found_extras:
                     continue
+                found_extras.add(extra)

-                optional_dependencies += [d.name for d in package.extras[extra]]
+                extra_dependencies = package.extras.get(extra, [])
+                for extra_dependency in extra_dependencies:
+                    if extra_dependency.name == dependency.name:
+                        stack += list(extra_dependency.features)
+                    else:
+                        optional_dependencies.add(extra_dependency.name)

+            # If some extras/features were required, we need to add a special dependency
+            # representing the base package to the current package.
             dependency_package = dependency_package.with_features(
                 list(dependency.extras)
             )
@@ -505,10 +515,7 @@ class Provider:

             if not package.is_root() and (
                 (dep.is_optional() and dep.name not in optional_dependencies)
-                or (
-                    dep.in_extras
-                    and not set(dep.in_extras).intersection(dependency.extras)
-                )
+                or (dep.in_extras and not set(dep.in_extras).intersection(found_extras))                                                                                    ):
                 continue

but I think it still is problematic per #10106 (comment).

Edit: it might be reasonable to merge the improved version anyway. I don't think it breaks anything that works today - rather it fixes something, but leaves work to be done. Y'all could choose to defer further fixes, and consider that it's better to make progress with this one than to get blocked on demanding perfection.

[dimbleby]

also linking #7646

[abn]

Thanks @dimbleby appreciate the feedback. And yes, I will apply your suggestions and add some more test cases.

We can definitely merge after that. And do iterative improvements.

[abn]

@sourcery-ai review

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @abn - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[abn]

There is an intermittent failure on CI due to the way the fixtures are implemented, will need to fix that before merge.

[dimbleby]

I'm more or less reviewing my own suggestion here. So: yes, looks good to me - but don't over-weight that opinion!

[abn]

I'll let @radoering chime in first.

[radoering]

The implementation makes sense to me. I will take a look at the tests later this week. Then, I think we can merge it.

Review feedback implemented.

[abn]

@dimbleby sorry about the multiple threads, figured I might as well bring the conversation here from #10124 (comment) as I was able to resolve the test case issues.

We might be talking about two distinct cases. The scenario you have mentioned is fixed, I have also updated the test_solver_resolves_self_referential_extras case to include just that. Let me know if you were thinking something else there.

The case I was referring to is the test_solver_resolves_self_referential_extras_markers case. Where the self-referencing extra as a python version constraint. This however, I suspect can be left out of scope for this PR as it is not a regression but an existing issue.

Let me know if you think the scenario itself is invalid.

[dimbleby]

Let me know if you think the scenario itself is invalid.

While I do not see a good use case for it, it looks valid (and I had not thought of it!)

Probably not hard to fix? factor out the three checks (on python constraint.allows_any(), UNSAFE_PACKAGES, and marker.validate()) that cause us not to transfer from requires to _dependencies. Then make that same check before adding to the stack of extras.

(While we are talking about that code... UNSAFE_PACKAGES is completely dead and can safely be removed, and the calculation of marker_values could safely be done outside rather than inside the loop)

[abn]

Probably not hard to fix? factor out the three checks (on python constraint.allows_any(), UNSAFE_PACKAGES, and marker.validate()) that cause us not to transfer from requires to _dependencies. Then make that same check before adding to the stack of extras.

I reckon, if @radoering agrees, we do that incrementally. Because this change fixes one issue. And propagating the constraints on the self-referencing extras can be tackled in a separate PR once this one is done.

(While we are talking about that code... UNSAFE_PACKAGES is completely dead and can safely be removed, and the calculation of marker_values could safely be done outside rather than inside the loop)

Saw that. And I agree.

[radoering]

LGTM

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.