Describe the feature
Add a PEP 503-named entry point for project-name normalization, so callers normalizing a package name don't have to reach for extras.Normalize.
Why
PEP 503 project-name normalization and PEP 685 extra-name normalization are the same transformation — lowercase, then collapse any run of -, _, . into a single -. extras.Normalize already implements it, and its own doc comment says it mirrors pypa/packaging's canonicalize_name for PEP 503/685 both.
So the behavior is right and there is no duplication to remove. The problem is purely discoverability and call-site legibility: go-pyresolver's index.NewPackageName currently calls extras.Normalize to normalize a project name, which reads like a bug at the call site even though it is correct. The alternative — a second copy of the algorithm in go-pyresolver — would be worse, since two copies can drift.
Suggested shape
Either is fine; the second is probably cleaner:
- A
packagename package with Normalize(string) string, and extras.Normalize delegating to it (or vice versa) so there is exactly one implementation.
- Keep one implementation in an internal package, with
extras.Normalize and packagename.Normalize as thin named wrappers, each documenting its PEP.
Whichever way, one implementation. The current function is on a per-dependency, per-extra hot path during resolution and is deliberately regex-free, so keep that property.
Testing notes
The existing extras tests cover the transformation. A new entry point needs only enough to prove delegation, plus the PEP 503 examples from pypa/packaging's own test suite for the project-name framing.
Additional notes
- Once this lands, update
go-pyresolver's index/name.go to call the new entry point and drop the apologetic comment pointing here.
- Not urgent and not blocking: today's arrangement is correct, just awkward to read.
Describe the feature
Add a PEP 503-named entry point for project-name normalization, so callers normalizing a package name don't have to reach for
extras.Normalize.Why
PEP 503 project-name normalization and PEP 685 extra-name normalization are the same transformation — lowercase, then collapse any run of
-,_,.into a single-.extras.Normalizealready implements it, and its own doc comment says it mirrors pypa/packaging'scanonicalize_namefor PEP 503/685 both.So the behavior is right and there is no duplication to remove. The problem is purely discoverability and call-site legibility:
go-pyresolver'sindex.NewPackageNamecurrently callsextras.Normalizeto normalize a project name, which reads like a bug at the call site even though it is correct. The alternative — a second copy of the algorithm ingo-pyresolver— would be worse, since two copies can drift.Suggested shape
Either is fine; the second is probably cleaner:
packagenamepackage withNormalize(string) string, andextras.Normalizedelegating to it (or vice versa) so there is exactly one implementation.extras.Normalizeandpackagename.Normalizeas thin named wrappers, each documenting its PEP.Whichever way, one implementation. The current function is on a per-dependency, per-extra hot path during resolution and is deliberately regex-free, so keep that property.
Testing notes
The existing
extrastests cover the transformation. A new entry point needs only enough to prove delegation, plus the PEP 503 examples from pypa/packaging's own test suite for the project-name framing.Additional notes
go-pyresolver'sindex/name.goto call the new entry point and drop the apologetic comment pointing here.