feat: teach find_python_dependencies to scan uv.lock

[irfanuddinahmad]

What

find_python_dependencies previously only knew how to scan pip-compile style requirements.txt files (via requirements-parser) for dependencies whose PyPI-registered homepage belongs to a "second party" org (edx-unsupported, mitodl, overhangio, open-craft, eduNEXT, raccoongang) rather than openedx itself, so they can be flagged for review/migration.

Repos migrating from pip-compile to pyproject.toml + uv per the org-wide Python packaging modernization (openedx/public-engineering#506) have no flat requirements file left for it to scan. This forced openedx-platform to disable its Check Python Dependencies workflow entirely as part of its own migration (openedx/openedx-platform#38915), rather than have it silently no-op after requirements/edx/{base,testing}.txt were removed.

This closes #725.

How

iter_requirement_names() now branches on the input file name:

• uv.lock: reads the fully-resolved [[package]] list — this matches the same direct+transitive dependency closure a pip-compile'd requirements.txt used to represent, so it's the most faithful drop-in replacement for the old --req-file requirements/edx/base.txt usage.
• anything else: falls back to the existing requirements.txt parsing, unchanged.

pyproject.toml scanning was deliberately left out (see review discussion below): its [project.dependencies]/[dependency-groups] only list direct dependencies, not the resolved transitive closure, so scanning it directly would be misleading about what this tool actually checks.

main() also now dedupes names-per-file before hitting the PyPI API.

Bumped __version__ 4.0.0 → 4.1.0 for this new capability.

Side effect worth calling out: scanning uv.lock broadens what gets checked

uv.lock is a single unified lockfile covering every dependency-group at once (base, testing, doc, quality, assets, coverage, semgrep, etc.) — there's no way to scan "just base+testing" from it the way the old per-file .txt layout allowed. _names_from_uv_lock yields every package in the lock with no group filtering.

Concretely, for openedx-platform: the pre-migration check only ever scanned requirements/edx/base.txt + requirements/edx/testing.txt (confirmed by reading that repo's own check_python_dependencies.yml, both before and after its migration commit). Once it re-enables by pointing --req-file at uv.lock, the check will also start flagging second-party-org packages living in the previously-invisible doc/quality/assets/coverage/semgrep/development groups.

This is arguably a net positive for supply-chain coverage — a compromised or unvetted dev-tooling package still executes code on CI runners and dev machines, with access to secrets/tokens, so that's a real risk surface too, not just production code. But it is a real behavior change, not a like-for-like swap: if any of those dev-only groups currently has an unvetted second-party dependency, the check will start failing on first re-enable where it never would have before.

Verification

• tests/test_find_python_dependencies.py covers both input formats (requirements.txt, uv.lock) plus two main()-level tests (one that should flag a second-party dependency, one that should respect --ignore).
• Ran the new tests and the full existing suite: 107 passed (confirmed via the actual CI run log, not just locally).
• Sanity-checked iter_requirement_names() directly against openedx-platform's real uv.lock (445 names) to confirm it doesn't choke on a real-world file.

Follow-up

Once this is released, openedx-platform's check_python_dependencies.yml can point --req-file at uv.lock and be re-enabled (currently workflow_dispatch-only + if: false, per the comment there referencing this issue) — see the scope-broadening note above before doing so.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @irfanuddinahmad!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/axim-engineering.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

Details

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[mphilbrick211]

@openedx/axim-engineering hi there! Would someone be able to take a look at this?

[feanil]

@irfanuddinahmad this looks good, I don't think it's valuable to parse the pyproject dependencies and also I think it may be a bit misleading. Let's drop that and bump the version and then I think this is good to merge and release.

[feanil]

I'm not sure how valuable this is to have. These aren't the resolved full dependencies and so if someone ran the tool against this, they might be mislead into thinking that this tool resolves all the sub-dependencies if we pass the pyproject file instead of a lock file of some sort.

At the very least, we should document that we don't resolve dependencies via the find_python_dependencies tool. But I think it might be better to only support compiled file types like the uv.lock and *.txt files. That way the intent is clear and since we're moving everything to uv.lock, we don't need this at the moment anyway so let's not add more code than we need.

[irfanuddinahmad]

Done — dropped _names_from_pyproject_toml/_dependency_group_names and the pyproject.toml branch in iter_requirement_names() entirely, along with the now-unused packaging dependency (its only import was in the removed code) and the two pyproject.toml-specific tests. uv.lock/requirements.txt support is unchanged. Bumped __version__ to 4.1.0. Full suite still passes (95 tests).

[irfanuddinahmad]

Pushed — dropped pyproject.toml scanning entirely (kept uv.lock + the existing requirements.txt fallback), removed the now-unused packaging dep and its two pyproject.toml-only tests, and bumped __version__ to 4.1.0. PR description updated to match. Ready for another look.

[farhan]

Two small docs fixes before merge:

PR title still says "scan pyproject.toml and uv.lock" — pyproject.toml was dropped in the second commit. Suggest updating to feat: teach find_python_dependencies to scan uv.lock.

PR description claims two main()-level tests including one for --ignore, but the test file only has one (test_main_flags_second_party_dependency_from_uv_lock). Worth updating the description to match, and optionally restoring the --ignore test for uv.lock (the ignore logic is correct — just a coverage gap).

---

Before this merges, it would be good to see a quick smoke test across both supported formats to confirm nothing regresses on real-world repos.

Install from this branch:

pip install "git+https://github.com/irfanuddinahmad/repo-tools.git@irfanuddinahmad/find-python-dependencies-pyproject-uv#egg=edx-repo-tools[find_dependencies]"

Test against a uv.lock repo (e.g. openedx-platform — already partially verified per the PR description):

find_python_dependencies --req-file path/to/openedx-platform/uv.lock

Test against a pip-compile requirements.txt repo (e.g. course-discovery or credentials) to confirm the existing fallback is intact:

find_python_dependencies \
  --req-file path/to/repo/requirements/production.txt \
  --req-file path/to/repo/requirements/testing.txt

Could you share the terminal output for both? Specifically: how many packages were scanned and whether any second-party packages were flagged.

---

I have merging rights — happy to merge this once the above points are addressed.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[irfanuddinahmad]

Addressed both items and ran the requested smoke tests, installing from this branch (pip install "git+https://github.com/irfanuddinahmad/repo-tools.git@irfanuddinahmad/find-python-dependencies-pyproject-uv#egg=edx-repo-tools[find_dependencies]"):

• PR title updated to feat: teach find_python_dependencies to scan uv.lock.
• PR description: added the missing test_main_respects_ignore_for_uv_lock test (the --ignore coverage the description already claimed) in e7770b3, so the description's test count is now accurate. Also bumped the cited suite total to 107 passed.

Smoke test 1 — uv.lock (openedx-platform, real repo):

$ find_python_dependencies --req-file openedx-platform/uv.lock
The following packages are from 2nd party orgs and should not be added as a core dependency, they can be added as an optional dependency operationally or they can be transferred to the openedx org before they are included:
https://github.com/open-craft/xblock-poll
https://github.com/mitodl/edx-sga

445 packages scanned (matches the count already in the PR description), 2 second-party packages flagged, exit code 1.

Smoke test 2 — pip-compile requirements.txt fallback (edx-platform, real repo):

$ find_python_dependencies --req-file edx-platform/requirements/edx/base.txt --req-file edx-platform/requirements/edx/testing.txt
The following packages are from 2nd party orgs and should not be added as a core dependency, they can be added as an optional dependency operationally or they can be transferred to the openedx org before they are included:
https://github.com/mitodl/edx-sga
https://github.com/open-craft/xblock-poll

355 unique packages scanned across both files, same 2 packages flagged, exit code 1. Confirms the pre-existing requirements.txt path is unaffected by this change.

Both formats behave as expected on real-world repos — ready for another look.