docs: fix incorrect uv configuration for CLI extensions in "Using entry points" section (#4455)
#4456
Conversation
…ntry points" section (litestar-org#4455)
github-actions
bot
added
area/docs
|
Documentation preview will be available shortly at https://litestar-org.github.io/litestar-docs-preview/4456 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just above the changed like we have tool.poetry.plugins, which is deprecated: https://python-poetry.org/docs/pyproject#plugins
Can you please update it as well?
…t.entry-points]` for CLI command registration to ensure PEP 621 compliance. (litestar-org#4455)
|
@sobolevn Thanks for pointing that out! I've updated the deprecated tool.poetry.plugins configuration to use the standard [project.entry-points] format as requested. The changes are now included in this PR. |
| :caption: Using `uv <https://docs.astral.sh/uv/>`_ | ||
| [project.scripts] | ||
| [project.entry-points."litestar.commands"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since this has been standardised across tools, these individual tool-specific sections are unnecessary and should just be removed entirely
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I recommend changing this section to clarify that any build backend supporting the PEP 621 standard can register commands using the following syntax within the pyproject.toml file:
[project.entry-points."litestar.commands"]
my_command = "my_litestar_plugin.cli:main"This generalizes the approach beyond a specific tool and aligns with modern Python packaging practices.
3 participants
Description
Fix incorrect uv package manager configuration in CLI extension documentation. The current documentation uses
[project.scripts]which creates standalone executables instead of registering commands with the Litestar CLI group.Changes Made
[project.scripts]configuration with correct[project.entry-points."litestar.commands"]in CLI extension exampleslitestar.commandsentry point groupCloses
close #4455