requirements.txt allows editable paths to be quoted

[charliermarsh]

It seems like requirements.txt allows you to put editable paths in quotes (single or double). It does not allow quotes elsewhere though:

# Ok
-e "./scripts/packages/black_editable"

# Not ok
"./scripts/packages/black_editable"
black @ "./scripts/packages/black_editable"

[charliermarsh]

Low-priority, maybe we fix if it comes up.

[Briandye1987]

Ok

-e "./scripts/packages/black_editable"

Not ok

"./scripts/packages/black_editable"
black @ "./scripts/packages/black_editable"

[nkitsaini]

I was poking into this and found some related compatibility issues, which might or might not make sense for uv to address. I am documenting them here as it might be efficient to batch together the implementation for these.

Case 1: Pip treats options similar to shell arguments

-c file\ name

# pip: reads `file name`
# uv: reads `file\ name` (including forward slash)

Case 2: Pip allows splitting requirements in multiple lines by using \

httpx \
  == 0.0.1

# pip: tries to install `httpx == 0.0.1`
# uv: errors out parsing forward slash

Case 3: Pip silently ignores some options

httpx == 0.0.1 -r ./requirement.txt

# pip: installs httpx and silently ignores `requirement.txt`
# uv: parsing error. (I feel this is the right thing to do here over maintaining compatibility)

Pip's behaviour

1. Read file content
2. Join lines depending on if they end with a forward slash
3. Strip out comments (both inline and independent)
4. replace environment variables
5. For each line
   a. split line by the first occurrence of -
   b. The first part is treated as requirement definition and second part is treated as options (editable, constraints etc.).
   c. The first part (requirements) goes through a dedicated parser to split version, name, extras etc.
   d. The second part (options) is parsed by treating them similar to POSIX shell arguments.

Source: 1-4, 5.a-5.b, 5.c, 5.d