[adrian17]

Does this also replace, or work well with tox? We currently use it to run basic CI/local workflows (`tox -e lint` for all linters, `tox -e py310`, `tox -e py312` to run tests suites on chosen interpreters' environments), and to set up a local environment with package installed in-place (so that we can run `myprogram -arg1 -arg2` as if it was installed via `pip`, but still have it be editable by directly editing the repo).

With how much the ecosystem is moving, I don't know whether the way we're doing it is unusual (Django and some other big projects still have a tox.ini), obsolete (I can't find how ux obsoletes this), or perfectly fine and I just can't find how to replace pip with ux for this use case.

[NeutralForest]

I'm not personally releasing a ton of internal packages where I work but I know of https://github.com/tox-dev/tox-uv. Haven't tried it yet though but it seems to do what you want. I also saw that nox (tox but in python instead of a tox.ini file https://nox.thea.codes/en/stable/config.html), is supporting uv from what I understand.

I don't think there's a definite answer yet.

[sco1]

tox-uv has been a great selling point for my personal use of uv. I'm typically testing across 4-5 different versions of Python and the build speedup has been significant.

[quickslowdown]

Uv works fine with tox, but have you tried nox? I only dipped my toes in tox, but I found nox around the same time and gravitated to it. I replaced PDM's "scripts" concept with nox sessions. I have a project where most of the functionality is nox sessions I call in CI pipelines. Writing sessions in pure python opens so many doors.

[chippiewill]

I think the uv team intend to have a solution around tox (almost certainly replacing it), but haven't done so yet.