René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Ensure we are consistently handling optional dev groups vs. extras","articleBody":"A common pattern before PEP735 was to use the PEP621 \"extras\"/optional dependency groups mechanism.\n\nIn #1795, we are looking to use the PEP621 style as evidence of dev dependencies, since `setup.cfg` doesn't support the PEP735 style.\n\nThere are a few concerns here:\n\n1. We probably need to add some detailed documentation about all the different dependency declaration mechanisms supported by usethis. There's other considerations like Poetry's bespoke style, the deprecated `[tool.uv.dev-dependencies]` style.\n2. Are we supporting the PEP621 style when using uv? What about Poetry?\n2. I question whether we should bother supporting `setup.cfg` at all i.e. questioning #895, or at least whether we should support the idea of dev dependencies with `setup.cfg` (perhaps better to raise an error in such cases, suggesting a `pyproject.toml` migration.) Some tools won't support `setup.cfg` so the implications are tricky; e.g. poetry and uv I don't think support them. In any case something needs to make it clearer to the user that we are ignoring the `setup.cfg` file config if it does have an `[options]` section etc.\n\nOn writing this, I think it's best we close #1795 until this is resolved.","author":{"url":"https://github.com/nathanjmcdougall","@type":"Person","name":"nathanjmcdougall"},"datePublished":"2026-04-06T19:00:21.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":0},"url":"https://github.com/1823/usethis-python/issues/1823"}