Request: Compact annotations

[AndydeCleyre]

What's the problem this feature will solve?

Primary:

I would like to see a lot more information on my screen without having scroll up and down, when viewing annotated pip-compile output. At least as much as was the case before annotations became split into many lines.

Secondary:

I would like to use simple line-oriented shell tools to casually inspect properties of the pip-compile output, without resorting to multi-line regular expressions.

Describe the solution you'd like

I would like the ability, through a flag or any other means, to have pip-compile's annotated output place annotations for a pinned requirement on the same line as said requirement.

My screen is wide and short, as is common for computers. It's a more efficient use of this space to use more width and less height.

Example of the different use of space, for the magic-wormhole package from PyPI:

Alternative Solutions

• I could skip annotations, but then I'd lose a lot of valuable information.
• I could add a post-processor to re-write the pip-compile output every time I compile.
• I could revert Improve formatting of long "via" annotations #1237 and poorly maintain a fork of this project, but that would make me sad.

Additional context

• Add --split-annotate option #1297
• Improve formatting of long "via" annotations #1237
• Support outputting pip-compile in a structured format (e.g. json) #1377

[atugushev]

Based on feedback it looks like we should have introduced one-per-line annotations via an option. Well, better to do it late than never. I don't mind adding an option for the old-style annotations.

[ulope]

Just to give some feedback in the other direction: I'm very happy with the new separate line mode. The old format often caused really annoying merge conflicts that more than once lead developers in our team to just "blow away" the generated requirements.txt and compile a new one (with the obvious drawbacks of uncontrolled version changes)...

[AndydeCleyre]

@jdufresne

Would you like to tackle this one?

[jdufresne]

As this is an issue for enough users, please go ahead with adding an option. While I will personally not use it, clearly enough people will so might as well try to make this useful for as many people as possible.

[cjerdonek]

It occurs to me that this, as well as a number of other issues in pip-tools's tracker that want to alter and customize pip-tools's output in various ways, could perhaps be enabled generally if pip-compile provided the option of outputting the information it has in a structured format like json. Then it would be a lot easier for people to create requirements.txt files in the format (and content) they want if not explicitly supported by pip-compile. Currently, trying to alter pip-compile's output by parsing is fragile because the output format can change from release to release.

[pohmelie]

@cjerdonek
If I got you right, then I disagree. I think --format with some argument is classic solution and enough for this case.

[ushuz]

I think #1297 (comment) is the way to go, future proof.

[cjerdonek]

It occurs to me that this, as well as a number of other issues in pip-tools's tracker that want to alter and customize pip-tools's output in various ways, could perhaps be enabled generally if pip-compile provided the option of outputting the information it has in a structured format like json.

FYI, I just created issue #1377 expanding on my suggestion above.

If I got you right, then I disagree. I think --format with some argument is classic solution and enough for this case.

@pohmelie I don't disagree with you. pip-tools can still implement feature requests like this. I was merely pointing out a way that pip-tools could make it easier for users to work-around issues in cases where pip-tools hasn't yet implemented the feature in pip-tools itself.

[pohmelie]

@cjerdonek, that sounds nice.

[merwok]

JSON output seems potentially useful but orthogonal to the issue at hand, which is about a simple option to restore previous output format. It’s been a few months, people are either stuck with older pip-tools and can’t accept dependabot PRs anymore, or have to accept a PR with 100% diff. As time passes and newer pip gets incompatible with older pip-tools, this won’t be tenable.

[BarnabasSzabolcs]

The last pip-tools version that generates compact requirements.txt annotations is 5.4.0. I stick to using that.

[AndydeCleyre]

@jdufresne

Could you please at least weigh in on some of the proposed fixes? These include a structured output option, and two specific format options. I am guessing you would not support making the old style the default. I want to reduce wasted/undone work by getting input from the new-style "camp" written out here.

[jdufresne]

@AndydeCleyre sorry for the late response.

I like @cjerdonek's idea of adding a structured intermediate format that can then be manipulated further (outlined in #1377). pip-tools could ship with two formatters one with the multi-line annotations and one with the compact annotations. The project could choose one or the other as the default output. I personally like the multi-line as the default, but recognize others may prefer the compact.

I won't have the time to implement this, so it would be a welcome contribution from other maintainers or contributors. Thanks all for the feedback.

[AndydeCleyre]

I invite all interested parties to provide feedback for #1477, which adds --annotation-style.

[atugushev]

Old annotation style is released in pip-tools v6.3.0 🚀