Switch to `uv` and `pyproject.toml` for dependencies management

[mattcristal]

The current implementation of dbt-package-testing is making use of requirements.txt

It would be nice to move from requirements.txt --> pyproject.toml and use, for example, uv as the default and recommended way to install Python packages.

Is this possible? What do you think?

[mattcristal]

@b-per any thoughts here?

[mattcristal]

@mirnawong1

[mattcristal]

@emmyoop

[b-per]

Thanks for opening this, @mattcristal. Looking into it, I don't think anything in dbt-package-testing is actually blocking you — dev-requirements.txt and the pip install calls in run_tox.yml/run_tox_fusion.yml are internal to this repo, and packages that call our reusable workflows only interact with the inputs/secrets, not how we install things under the hood.

Is there something specific on your side this is blocking, or is it more of a general "it'd be nice if" suggestion? Just want to make sure I understand the actual need before we look at prioritizing it.

[boxysean]

I saw from a Slack message that the reason is:

It would be great to get a v2 of the dbt-labs/dbt-package-testing/.github/workflows/run_tox.yml re-usable workflow so that we can migrate dbt-date to a more modern way of working rather than having to post comments like this.

[mattcristal]

Thanks for opening this, @mattcristal. Looking into it, I don't think anything in dbt-package-testing is actually blocking you — dev-requirements.txt and the pip install calls in run_tox.yml/run_tox_fusion.yml are internal to this repo, and packages that call our reusable workflows only interact with the inputs/secrets, not how we install things under the hood.

Is there something specific on your side this is blocking, or is it more of a general "it'd be nice if" suggestion? Just want to make sure I understand the actual need before we look at prioritizing it.

As mentioned in the initial description of the issue, I personally believe that uv is now the way to go for managing python dependencies.

It would be nice if this package would also do that. Leading the example then for other dbt packages.

[mattcristal]

Just a suggestion.

A discussion worth having 🤗

[pgoslatara]

Is there something specific on your side this is blocking, or is it more of a general "it'd be nice if" suggestion? Just want to make sure I understand the actual need before we look at prioritizing it.

@b-per I think the question here is two-part:

1. Would you be open to a v2 of the run_tox.yml workflow that uses uv and pyproject.toml rather than pip and requirements.txt?
2. There are many dbt Labs repos where pip remains the package manager. Is it on your radar to upgrade these to uv in the future or has there been a decision to move in a different direction?

[b-per]

Opened a draft PR exploring this: #31

To be clear — this is not a commitment to merge it as-is. It's a concrete exploration of what a uv migration could look like here, mainly to check whether it matches what you had in mind before we decide on a direction. Would appreciate feedback on it, particularly whether the approach (uv + pyproject.toml, tox kept but backed by tox-uv) addresses what prompted this issue.

cc @mattcristal @boxysean @pgoslatara