Replacing requirement files and setup.py with pyproject.toml

[robotAstray]

Summary

This pull request aims to resolve issue 61. The requirement files and setup.py have been replaced with pyproject.toml.

Details and comments

The pyproject.toml in this repo is a template and contains the required fields. In addition, optional fields can be added according to the documentation found here.
To install pyproject.toml use the command python -m pip install path/to/pyproject.toml

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[robotAstray]

Hello @caleb-johnson, would you kindly have a look at my solution?
If there are any problems I will fix them.
Thank you

[caleb-johnson]

Thanks for this submission! Just a small comment.

[garrison]

I'm going to approve the workflow, but my guess is that the "minimum version tests" and "development version tests" will fail for the meantime. Right now, an improved, pyproject.toml-compatible version of these tests is at https://github.com/Qiskit-Extensions/circuit-knitting-toolbox/blob/main/tools/extremal-python-dependencies.py. I'd really like to spin that off into its own repository so it can be used in other projects without having code duplicated in all of them.

[robotAstray]

I'm going to approve the workflow, but my guess is that the "minimum version tests" and "development version tests" will fail for the meantime. Right now, an improved, pyproject.toml-compatible version of these tests is at https://github.com/Qiskit-Extensions/circuit-knitting-toolbox/blob/main/tools/extremal-python-dependencies.py. I'd really like to spin that off into its own repository so it can be used in other projects without having code duplicated in all of them.

@garrison, yes, I agree. The checks will not pass because requirements.txt and setup.py have been replaced by pyproject.toml. Some of the checks are looking for the paths of the files I removed (i.e. requirments.txt and setup.py).

[caleb-johnson]

Looks great, thanks!

[caleb-johnson]

Ahh the CI was passing earlier, sorry I'm getting caught up now :)

Broken CI

[robotAstray]

@garrison should I re-add requirments.txt and setup.py to the repo just so the checks pass? The idea was to replace them so I removed them, but I can see without them the checks will not be successful.

[garrison]

I think it makes more sense just to remove the dev and min version test workflows for now.

With regards to setup.py, I think it makes sense to have a minimal one for other reasons. Something identical to https://github.com/Qiskit-Extensions/circuit-knitting-toolbox/blob/contributing.md/setup.py would suffice.

[robotAstray]

@garrison ok, that is done for you. Thank you.

[garrison]

tox.ini is going to need some changes, too. Where you see

quantum-prototype-template/tox.ini

Lines 15 to 16 in fac25b3

	deps = -rrequirements.txt
	-rrequirements-dev.txt

replace with extras = dev

Might also be worth grepping the repository (e.g., git grep) to see if the requirements files are mentioned in any other places.

[robotAstray]

Aside for the dev and min version test workflows which I removed, the files containing requirement files are:
ecosystem.json with :

        "dependencies_files": [
           "requirements.txt",
           "requirements-dev.txt"
       ],

• README.md (I commented out the two paragraphs about the dev and min version test workflows since the files have been removed).
• file-map-and-description.md (I can fix this by adding a short description of pyproject.toml)

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 5192209113

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 100.0%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 4898908272:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	14
Relevant Lines:	14

---

💛 - Coveralls

[robotAstray]

@garrison should I modify theecosystem.json dependencies_files entry? If so what should I replaced that part with?
https://github.com/robotAstray/quantum-prototype-template/blob/be40dfe47e8cf5eafc43e3b553feb1ffd617c20c/ecosystem.json

[robotAstray]

I just ran tox -elint from the root folder and I have this

$ tox -elint
lint: commands[0]> black --check .
lint: failed with black is not allowed, use allowlist_externals to allow it
  lint: FAIL code 1 (0.28 seconds)
  evaluation failed :( (1.58 seconds)

[garrison]

You will need extras = dev in the lint and black environments, too.

[robotAstray]

Hello @garrison we already have extrs = dev on line 15 in tox.ini . I guess when you refer to lint and black environments you are referring to the block [testenv:black] and [testenv:lint]? I have tried to add extras = dev to these blocks and I still get the same error.

[garrison]

What version of tox are you using? If below version 4, you might have to pass the -r flag to tox for it to re-create the environment.

[robotAstray]

@garrison, I am currently on version 4.6.0.

[robotAstray]

perhaps there is a problem with my system. I ran all the commands manually and it seems to me the checks all passed
Update: 16th June 02:39 (CEST): I have created a virtual environment and re-installed pyproject.toml. That resolved some of the issues.
I have added allowlist_externals = pylint, nbqa under [testenv:lint] to allow tox -elint to run correctly.
Update: 16th June 03:17 (CEST): I think I have resolved the problems related to this issue. Let me know if there is anything else to fix (or change). Thank you.

[garrison]

Can you remove these lines containing requirements.txt and requirements-dev.txt? (since there is no chance in them coming back)

[robotAstray]

That has been resolved.

[garrison]

Can you double check? I think you removed a different commented region, actually, than this one in c3a3519. I was thinking it makes sense to keep the explanations in README.md commented out since (we hope) the development and minimum version tests will re-appear in a subsequent PR.

[robotAstray]

Hello @garrison you can check my last push a4a72f7 it contains the changes you requested.

[robotAstray]

I have also re-added the comment section I wrongly removed previously. Sorry about that.

[garrison]

Just one note for the future (don't worry about this here): typically it is customary to make pull requests from a new branch in your fork, rather than using main in your fork. Using main can sometimes make things confusing, particularly if you open up multiple PRs to the same repository.

[garrison]

Thanks, this is looking very good to me. I appreciate the contribution!

[robotAstray]

Just one note for the future (don't worry about this here): typically it is customary to make pull requests from a new branch in your fork, rather than using main in your fork. Using main can sometimes make things confusing, particularly if you open up multiple PRs to the same repository.

noted!