Add an experimental uv format command

[zanieb]

As a frontend to Ruff's formatter.

There are some interesting choices here, some of which may just be temporary:

1. We pin a default version of Ruff, so uv format is stable for a given uv version
2. We install Ruff from GitHub instead of PyPI, which means we don't need a Python interpreter or environment
3. We do not read the Ruff version from the dependency tree

See astral-sh/ruff#19665 for a prototype of the LSP integration.

[zanieb]

@konstin can you review please? I want to build on the abstractions added here.

[konstin]

What does the Some(1) here do?

[zanieb]

This is just a copy of

uv/crates/uv/src/commands/reporters.rs

Lines 638 to 652 in 5de39b5

	/// Initialize a [`PythonDownloadReporter`] for a single Python download.
	pub(crate) fn single(printer: Printer) -> Self {
	Self::new(printer, 1)
	}
	/// Initialize a [`PythonDownloadReporter`] for multiple Python downloads.
	pub(crate) fn new(printer: Printer, length: u64) -> Self {
	let multi_progress = MultiProgress::with_draw_target(printer.target());
	let root = multi_progress.add(ProgressBar::with_draw_target(
	Some(length),
	printer.target(),
	));
	let reporter = ProgressReporter::new(root, multi_progress, printer);
	Self { reporter }
	}

without support for multiple items yet.

I guess we shouldn't use a MultiProgress? I don't really mind using it for consistency though.

[konstin]

Non-blocker here (an aesthetic problem if it shows up all, pre-existing code), but setting the length to 1 instead of None seems off, shouldn't we either set a real value or nothing?

[zanieb]

Yeah I.. don't really know much about what's going on here. We can open an issue to dig into it.

[zanieb]

I believe I've addressed all the feedback.

[konstin]

We need to fix the retries thing, everything else looks good

[mgaitan]

how is it different to uvx ruff format ? seems a bit weird to be honest.

[shawnoster]

I know this is merged but not a huge fan of this. Is the uv roadmap for it to become yet another bloated tool. Calling two tools is not difficult and adheres to the the Unix tradition of a tool doing one thing and one thing well. Just one more thing to maintain in a place that doesn't need it.

Do as you do but architecturally this is a bad choice.