Add uv add --no-editable

[j178]

Summary

Resolves #5241

Test Plan

# create a workspace with sub-packages `pkg-a` and `pkg-b`

$ cd ./pkg-b
$ cargo run -- add ./pkg-a --no-editable

$ cat ./pyproject.toml
[project]
name = "pkg-b"
version = "0.1.0"
description = "Add your description here"
readme = "README.md"
dependencies = [
    "pkg-a",
]

[tool.uv]
dev-dependencies = []

[tool.uv.sources]
pkg-a = { workspace = true, editable = false }

[charliermarsh]

Thanks!

[zanieb]

@charliermarsh this was implemented intentionally as --editable and --editable=true / --editable=false to match the syntax you'd use in the pyproject.toml. I don't prefer --no-editable.

cc @ibraheemdev

[charliermarsh]

I don't understand why you would use --editable=true, that's so surprising!

[charliermarsh]

Oh, you're saying --editable already worked, but it also supported --editable=true and --editable=false? I don't know, that's also not as intuitive to me given that we don't have that pattern anywhere else in the CLI.

[zanieb]

Yeah because of default_missing_value = "true".

I know it's not aligned with the rest of the CLI — but it does directly match the sources definition. I don't know if I feel particularly strongly, but wanted to flag that this wasn't an oversight. I'm not sure why, but --no-editable doesn't feel like it encodes the meaning as clearly (although it is more intuitive given our existing patterns).

[charliermarsh]

Ok I defer to others on this (you and @ibraheemdev). I also don't feel strongly. I thought the original report was that you had to do --editable=true which I knew every user would get wrong :)

[zanieb]

Maybe the most user-friendly thing is to support --editable / --no-editable and --editable=true / --editable=false. It's not like there's something else we'll want the flag for.

Are there other booleans that would make sense as --<name>=false (instead of --no-<name>)?

I'll think on this. Unsure if we should revert in the meantime.

[bluss]

Sorry for this one then.

I'll chime in and say the reason I reported the bug was this interaction (uv 0.2.24):

> uv add --editable ./sibling/
error: invalid value './sibling/' for '--editable [<EDITABLE>]'

So just --editable worked in some places but not before the name of the dependency.

[charliermarsh]

Ahh yeah. That's actually a pretty big footgun in my opinion.

[zanieb]

Ah okay sold. Thanks!